vivache
09-28 12:51 AM
Need to fill the I-134 for my mother in law and father in law
Does one form suffice .. or do I need to fill two forms?
thanks
Does one form suffice .. or do I need to fill two forms?
thanks
wallpaper Air Jordan 2011 Flight Black
srarao
09-29 11:48 AM
Hi
I am July 2nd filer at NSC.
I got my EAD approved from NSC on 25th. I see a message-- card ordered. Today there is one LUD , approval notice sent.
Is this common
---
Contributed $150 so far
I am July 2nd filer at NSC.
I got my EAD approved from NSC on 25th. I see a message-- card ordered. Today there is one LUD , approval notice sent.
Is this common
---
Contributed $150 so far
Macaca
09-06 05:30 PM
Congress Deserves Better Ratings, But Not by Much (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_22/kondracke/19839-1.html) By Morton M. Kondracke | Roll Call, September 6, 2007
Congress returned to town this week with its poll ratings even lower than President Bush's. That's because nearly all the public ever sees is Members fighting and accomplishing nothing.
But it's not a completely accurate picture. By the time Congress adjourned for the August recess, it actually had racked up some legislative accomplishments that voters didn't appreciate.
So perhaps a fair grade for the 110th Congress so far would be an F for style, a C-plus for effort and an Incomplete for quality of achievement. There is plenty of room for checking the box "shows improvement."
What Congress has accomplished this year came in two bursts - the first "100 hours," when the House pushed through much of its promised "Six in '06" agenda, and the final 100 hours or so last month, when both the House and Senate processed a bevy of legislation.
In between, what occurred was five months of nearly nonstop ugliness - failed Democratic efforts to stop the Iraq War, a fractious and futile fight over immigration reform, vengeful exercises of legislative oversight designed to discredit the Bush administration, and shouting matches between majority Democrats and minority Republicans.
Even the pre-adjournment legislative push was clouded over by a raucous, late-night dust-up over a thwarted House GOP move to deny benefits to illegal immigrants that made for great television, doubtless reinforcing the public's impression of a Congress in total disarray.
It's not a complete misimpression. Partisan wrangling is the dominant activity of this Congress. It makes a mockery of the fervent proclamations by leaders of both parties in January that they understood voters' dismay with endless, pointless point-scoring and the desire that Congress solve their urgent problems.
Congress' failure to make problem-solving its dominant activity accounts for its low public esteem. Polls on public approval of Congress average 22 percent, compared with 33 percent for Bush. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 14 percent have confidence that Congress will do the right thing.
But Congress has done some things right this year and notice should be taken of them.
A statistical rundown by Brookings Institution scholars published in The New York Times on Aug. 26 showed that the current House is running well ahead of recent Congresses in terms of days in session, bills passed and hearings held. The Senate has a mixed record.
One signal, unappreciated accomplishment was overwhelming passage of a $43 billion program designed to bolster America's competitiveness by doubling its scientific research budget and training more scientists and linguists.
Sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Reps. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), the final bill passed the House 367-57 and by voice vote without dissent in the Senate.
Other bills passed and sent to the president this year include an increase in the minimum wage, lobbying and ethics reform and homeland security enhancements fulfilling the recommendations of the presidential 9/11 commission.
Also on the list, but the subject of ongoing partisan division, was last-minute legislation authorizing the government to conduct no-warrant intercepts of electronic communication between two overseas parties when the messages pass through a server in the United States.
Civil liberties groups, many Democrats and some editorial writers contend that the measure authorized "domestic spying on U.S. citizens," but the objections seem to reflect distrust of the Bush administration more than any leeway in the law to tap persons in the United States.
Congress will revisit the issue and to the extent that controversy continues, it will reinforce public dismay that its leaders would rather fight than protect them from terrorism.
Meanwhile, some of the claimed accomplishments of the Democratic Congress are less than stellar. Energy bills passed by both chambers fall far short of setting the nation on a path to independence. Neither contains a gasoline tax, encouragement for nuclear power or provisions to expand America's electricity grid.
Farm legislation that passed the House limits subsidies to the richest American farmers but basically leaves intact a subsidy system for corporate farmers that artificially inflates land values, inhibits rural development, hurts farmers in poor countries and puts the U.S. in danger of world trade sanctions.
Bush has signaled his intention to veto both the House farm bill and the Senate energy bill - and also both the House and Senate measures expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate SCHIP bill has funding flaws but basically is a responsible, bipartisan bill that deserves to survive a veto.
With Congress back, the prospect is for more combat with Bush, largely over spending and Iraq. The country will be lucky to avoid government shutdowns as the two sides trade charges that the other is fiscally irresponsible.
And a flurry of progress reports on Iraq is only stimulating new rancor, despite widespread underlying agreement that troop withdrawals need to be gradual and responsible.
Congress and the Bush administration ought to resolve to improve their public esteem not at each other's expense, but by seeking agreement in the public interest. Admittedly, the chances are slim.
Congress returned to town this week with its poll ratings even lower than President Bush's. That's because nearly all the public ever sees is Members fighting and accomplishing nothing.
But it's not a completely accurate picture. By the time Congress adjourned for the August recess, it actually had racked up some legislative accomplishments that voters didn't appreciate.
So perhaps a fair grade for the 110th Congress so far would be an F for style, a C-plus for effort and an Incomplete for quality of achievement. There is plenty of room for checking the box "shows improvement."
What Congress has accomplished this year came in two bursts - the first "100 hours," when the House pushed through much of its promised "Six in '06" agenda, and the final 100 hours or so last month, when both the House and Senate processed a bevy of legislation.
In between, what occurred was five months of nearly nonstop ugliness - failed Democratic efforts to stop the Iraq War, a fractious and futile fight over immigration reform, vengeful exercises of legislative oversight designed to discredit the Bush administration, and shouting matches between majority Democrats and minority Republicans.
Even the pre-adjournment legislative push was clouded over by a raucous, late-night dust-up over a thwarted House GOP move to deny benefits to illegal immigrants that made for great television, doubtless reinforcing the public's impression of a Congress in total disarray.
It's not a complete misimpression. Partisan wrangling is the dominant activity of this Congress. It makes a mockery of the fervent proclamations by leaders of both parties in January that they understood voters' dismay with endless, pointless point-scoring and the desire that Congress solve their urgent problems.
Congress' failure to make problem-solving its dominant activity accounts for its low public esteem. Polls on public approval of Congress average 22 percent, compared with 33 percent for Bush. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 14 percent have confidence that Congress will do the right thing.
But Congress has done some things right this year and notice should be taken of them.
A statistical rundown by Brookings Institution scholars published in The New York Times on Aug. 26 showed that the current House is running well ahead of recent Congresses in terms of days in session, bills passed and hearings held. The Senate has a mixed record.
One signal, unappreciated accomplishment was overwhelming passage of a $43 billion program designed to bolster America's competitiveness by doubling its scientific research budget and training more scientists and linguists.
Sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Reps. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), the final bill passed the House 367-57 and by voice vote without dissent in the Senate.
Other bills passed and sent to the president this year include an increase in the minimum wage, lobbying and ethics reform and homeland security enhancements fulfilling the recommendations of the presidential 9/11 commission.
Also on the list, but the subject of ongoing partisan division, was last-minute legislation authorizing the government to conduct no-warrant intercepts of electronic communication between two overseas parties when the messages pass through a server in the United States.
Civil liberties groups, many Democrats and some editorial writers contend that the measure authorized "domestic spying on U.S. citizens," but the objections seem to reflect distrust of the Bush administration more than any leeway in the law to tap persons in the United States.
Congress will revisit the issue and to the extent that controversy continues, it will reinforce public dismay that its leaders would rather fight than protect them from terrorism.
Meanwhile, some of the claimed accomplishments of the Democratic Congress are less than stellar. Energy bills passed by both chambers fall far short of setting the nation on a path to independence. Neither contains a gasoline tax, encouragement for nuclear power or provisions to expand America's electricity grid.
Farm legislation that passed the House limits subsidies to the richest American farmers but basically leaves intact a subsidy system for corporate farmers that artificially inflates land values, inhibits rural development, hurts farmers in poor countries and puts the U.S. in danger of world trade sanctions.
Bush has signaled his intention to veto both the House farm bill and the Senate energy bill - and also both the House and Senate measures expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate SCHIP bill has funding flaws but basically is a responsible, bipartisan bill that deserves to survive a veto.
With Congress back, the prospect is for more combat with Bush, largely over spending and Iraq. The country will be lucky to avoid government shutdowns as the two sides trade charges that the other is fiscally irresponsible.
And a flurry of progress reports on Iraq is only stimulating new rancor, despite widespread underlying agreement that troop withdrawals need to be gradual and responsible.
Congress and the Bush administration ought to resolve to improve their public esteem not at each other's expense, but by seeking agreement in the public interest. Admittedly, the chances are slim.
2011 chicago bulls logo black
eager_immi
07-18 11:08 AM
send them the business week article. In my company along with me 4 other folks also affected due to visa bulletin mess. I sent them an email on July 9th 2007 about flower campaign organized by IV to USCIS director. The sad part is no body showed any interest and bothered to reply. They are also going to benefited by this decision. These people still beleive in Murthy and other lawyer firm updates. I really don't know how to make these folks interested in IV. Any ideas or other personal stories.
more...
H1Girl
03-13 01:05 AM
Here is my scenario...
1. Applied my first EAD thru some lawyer (hence G-28)
2. I am planning to renew it on "my own"
Can I renew EAD without Attroney help... I know the answer "YES" but the main question is... do I need to inform USCIS saying that I want to withdraw my lawyer's and hence G-28 which was filed along with my first EAD?
If anyone are sucessful, please help me...My question is not on how to self apply EAD..My question is whether we need to inform USCIS about G-28...
1. Applied my first EAD thru some lawyer (hence G-28)
2. I am planning to renew it on "my own"
Can I renew EAD without Attroney help... I know the answer "YES" but the main question is... do I need to inform USCIS saying that I want to withdraw my lawyer's and hence G-28 which was filed along with my first EAD?
If anyone are sucessful, please help me...My question is not on how to self apply EAD..My question is whether we need to inform USCIS about G-28...
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
more...
solaris27
12-20 08:37 AM
no it will not if you are not working for that employer and not using that H1B visa .
2010 Red-Black Logo Sole
jchan
06-02 04:33 PM
I am on 7th year of H1B with approved 140. 485 not filed yet.
My company is starting layoff and I am afraid I will be hit. If I switch to H4 after being laid off and found a new employer in future, is that possible to switch back to H1B without having to leave the country for a full year?
My current H1B was a three year extension based on approved 140, but I don't know if I will lose the benefit of AC21 and cannot change back to H1B once I switch to H4 since my 6 years have been used up already.
thanks in advance.
My company is starting layoff and I am afraid I will be hit. If I switch to H4 after being laid off and found a new employer in future, is that possible to switch back to H1B without having to leave the country for a full year?
My current H1B was a three year extension based on approved 140, but I don't know if I will lose the benefit of AC21 and cannot change back to H1B once I switch to H4 since my 6 years have been used up already.
thanks in advance.
more...
pcdoc
01-26 10:39 PM
I got green card through marriage. My wife is a US citizen and I came here legally and was in legal status(F-1) before getting married. We got married in August 2005. I applied for green card following year and finally got my card approved March 2008. I got a conditional residence which expires March 2010. I did all paperwork myself. My wife recomend me for an attorney for removal of condition. Attorney tells me that USCIS screwed up and sent me a conditonal residence card as under,"Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act of 1986 (IMFA) on November 6, 1986. INA � 216, 8 USC � 1186a","Under IMFA, an �alien spouse� who obtained the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence by virtue of a marriage contracted less than 24 months before the date of admission is considered to have obtained such status on a conditional basis."
Now he wants me to send the green card back to USCIS as at the time of approval of my petition my marriage had passed more than two years!
I am confused. I need a second opinion.
Please help
Thanks for your precious time. I really appreciate it
Now he wants me to send the green card back to USCIS as at the time of approval of my petition my marriage had passed more than two years!
I am confused. I need a second opinion.
Please help
Thanks for your precious time. I really appreciate it
hair jordan logo black. lack
champu
03-02 12:53 AM
Hi Gurus
I have a 4 year Indian Bachelor degree and 5 years of IT experience.
Of my 5 year experience
4 years is for My Company (India) Ltd
1 year is for My Company (US) Ltd.
Will my total experience be treated as progressive and can I process in EB2 category?
Kindly answer my query? Thanks in advance.
BTW Current Employment will not be counted.
I have a 4 year Indian Bachelor degree and 5 years of IT experience.
Of my 5 year experience
4 years is for My Company (India) Ltd
1 year is for My Company (US) Ltd.
Will my total experience be treated as progressive and can I process in EB2 category?
Kindly answer my query? Thanks in advance.
BTW Current Employment will not be counted.
more...
iamgsprabhu
04-19 10:10 PM
Want to Know What the President Thinks about Immigration Reform? Ask Him!
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11041944 (posted Apr. 19, 2011)"
On Wednesday, April 20th at 1:45 pm PT / 4:45 pm ET, President Obama is hosting a live Facebook town hall event titled �Shared Responsibility and Shared Prosperity� from Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, California. The event will be live streamed on the White House Facebook page and the White House website.
Participate in this event by submitting your questions (immigration-related or not) on the White House Facebook page or submit a question using the following form.
Is there anybody from core team who can communicate our EB3 delay to the President ?
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11041944 (posted Apr. 19, 2011)"
On Wednesday, April 20th at 1:45 pm PT / 4:45 pm ET, President Obama is hosting a live Facebook town hall event titled �Shared Responsibility and Shared Prosperity� from Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, California. The event will be live streamed on the White House Facebook page and the White House website.
Participate in this event by submitting your questions (immigration-related or not) on the White House Facebook page or submit a question using the following form.
Is there anybody from core team who can communicate our EB3 delay to the President ?
hot Jordan 1 White Black Grey Logo
raysaikat
11-28 08:06 PM
Do we (parent) gets any benefits in terms of Visa status if you have child born in USA and you stay in US for certain years?
In the other word:
Once you have child born in USA is there any way to get green card based on your child citizenship?
Once the US citizen child is an adult (I think 21 years old), then s/he can sponsor the parents for green card.
Otherwise, no.
In the other word:
Once you have child born in USA is there any way to get green card based on your child citizenship?
Once the US citizen child is an adult (I think 21 years old), then s/he can sponsor the parents for green card.
Otherwise, no.
more...
house jordan logo backgrounds. logo
msp1976
02-08 05:11 AM
Check with your school's office for International students...Nowadays many schools require that you work their own office....They have an attorney and you just submit papers and they take care of it....
tattoo Air Jordan 2011 Flight
prash4u3144
08-26 12:14 PM
Applied for LCA before H - 1 B renewal and got the error "FEIN ID NOT FOUND " error. I submitted additional documents still waiting for reply from DOL. Applied for LCA on august 5 , got the reply "FEIN not found" on august 13, faxed additional documents on same day still did not hear back from DOL.. Pls advice how long it will take now???????
more...
pictures Air Jordan 29 NFL red logo-red
Steve Mitchell
April 25th, 2004, 02:10 PM
CF card speed does matter, particularly if you shoot RAW or use the motor drive. Even going from a 24X card to a Sandisk Ultra II was amazing. Stay away from the low write speed cards.