krchandra
08-01 10:33 AM
Hi,
I have paid $60 for a citation (sale of tobacco products to minors) in 2004 in texas. do i need to mention this in my 485 application? does this effect my green card process?
Thank you
I have paid $60 for a citation (sale of tobacco products to minors) in 2004 in texas. do i need to mention this in my 485 application? does this effect my green card process?
Thank you
wallpaper Tiger Woods yacht Privacy
demrep
03-25 11:58 AM
Hi,
I got my labor approved couple of weeks back and now attorney is filing I-140. My situation is
Job 1 : Worked from July 1st 2006 to Oct 2nd 2007 (Laid off on that date and h1b was not cancelled ever after)
so applied for h1 transfer immediately, USCIS received application on Oct 9th 2007 (Regular processing)
While I was waiting on that, I got another fulltime job in Nov, Applied for h1 through this company (Premium processing) and got approval within a week, started working from Nov 15th 2007 to till date..
In Decemeber 2007, I got approval for pending H1b from 2nd compnay too.. but never used as i was already working for Company 3.
So, In my labor requirement it was M.S. and 1 yr relevant experience, Labor approval showing employemnt history as
Job 1 : July 1 2006 to Oct 2 2007
Current Job : Nov 15th 2007 to till date
Is it a problem if it shows 1 month gap between these two jobs?
Appreciate your time
I got my labor approved couple of weeks back and now attorney is filing I-140. My situation is
Job 1 : Worked from July 1st 2006 to Oct 2nd 2007 (Laid off on that date and h1b was not cancelled ever after)
so applied for h1 transfer immediately, USCIS received application on Oct 9th 2007 (Regular processing)
While I was waiting on that, I got another fulltime job in Nov, Applied for h1 through this company (Premium processing) and got approval within a week, started working from Nov 15th 2007 to till date..
In Decemeber 2007, I got approval for pending H1b from 2nd compnay too.. but never used as i was already working for Company 3.
So, In my labor requirement it was M.S. and 1 yr relevant experience, Labor approval showing employemnt history as
Job 1 : July 1 2006 to Oct 2 2007
Current Job : Nov 15th 2007 to till date
Is it a problem if it shows 1 month gap between these two jobs?
Appreciate your time
bibs
02-10 11:25 PM
Hi
With the current market crisis, you never know when you will be out of job.
Though I have my H1B valid till 2011( my I140 is approved and is already over more than six months, 485 is pending), Most of the people suggesting me to apply for EAD.
1) What are the procedures I have to maintain ( in connection to USCIS and my green card application pending) if I change employer?
2)Can I also work for multiple employers on EAD?
Thanks in advance.
With the current market crisis, you never know when you will be out of job.
Though I have my H1B valid till 2011( my I140 is approved and is already over more than six months, 485 is pending), Most of the people suggesting me to apply for EAD.
1) What are the procedures I have to maintain ( in connection to USCIS and my green card application pending) if I change employer?
2)Can I also work for multiple employers on EAD?
Thanks in advance.
2011 About tiger woods new
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.
more...
pa_arora
07-19 02:32 PM
Hi
I have a couple questions:confused: -
1) Can I file EAD/AP now; I applied 485 on July 3 (no receipt number yet, but application received by USCIS)?
2) What all docs are required for filing EAD & AP? I want to file it myself.
I have a couple questions:confused: -
1) Can I file EAD/AP now; I applied 485 on July 3 (no receipt number yet, but application received by USCIS)?
2) What all docs are required for filing EAD & AP? I want to file it myself.
Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
more...
pgujj1
10-22 10:04 PM
Hi all,
I came to US on F1 student visa for Masters. After completion i had my OPT(from sep/1/2007 to sep/2/2008). My employer applied for H1 in april/08 and i got approved. So currently my status is H1 starting from Oct/1/2008.
Iam a consultant (Oracle PL/SQL developer) & i was on the project for a few months(from june/08 to august/08). Since august, iam on bench period and not getting paid by my employer & currently looking for a project!!!
My questions are;
1) How long can i stay like this on the H1 visa without getting paid or untill i get into a project; even though iam employed by the company and, are there any restrictions?
2) Will it cause any problem in future?
3) Also i have to go for the H1 stamping; any guidelines on tht?
Thanks
I came to US on F1 student visa for Masters. After completion i had my OPT(from sep/1/2007 to sep/2/2008). My employer applied for H1 in april/08 and i got approved. So currently my status is H1 starting from Oct/1/2008.
Iam a consultant (Oracle PL/SQL developer) & i was on the project for a few months(from june/08 to august/08). Since august, iam on bench period and not getting paid by my employer & currently looking for a project!!!
My questions are;
1) How long can i stay like this on the H1 visa without getting paid or untill i get into a project; even though iam employed by the company and, are there any restrictions?
2) Will it cause any problem in future?
3) Also i have to go for the H1 stamping; any guidelines on tht?
Thanks
2010 Is Tiger Woods back on the
jliechty
June 10th, 2004, 09:10 PM
Looks good to me, but I'm clueless about portraiture.
more...
sri2007
02-26 11:31 AM
Hi,
Can I use AC 21 after completion of 180 days from the receipt date thow EAD not received. Pls Advise.:confused:
Can I use AC 21 after completion of 180 days from the receipt date thow EAD not received. Pls Advise.:confused:
hair Woods#39; New Girlfriend
fishingshu
06-17 02:30 PM
How's this guy's reputation? I made an appointment with him for 485 physical. Read some horrible stories here about skin test and X-ray, hence the question.
Thanks,
Thanks,
more...
borrows123
05-25 04:27 AM
You have to inform the university management..
So you can get a new copy of that ....
So you can get a new copy of that ....
hot Tiger Woods has a new
GoneSouth
09-15 04:10 PM
Say, there seems to be some confusion over the which is the SKIL bill and which is the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA).
GovTrack lists the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act as S.2611, sponsored by Sen. Arlen Spector. This was the bill that the Senate passed on 05/25/06. OK easy enough.
If I do a search for securing knowledge innovation in GovTack, S.2691 pops up, sponsor Sen. John Cornyn. OK all good.
If I look up SKIL Bill on google though, immigration.about.com seems to think that the SKIL bill is S.2611. Possibly this one site is just confused?
GovTrack lists the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act as S.2611, sponsored by Sen. Arlen Spector. This was the bill that the Senate passed on 05/25/06. OK easy enough.
If I do a search for securing knowledge innovation in GovTack, S.2691 pops up, sponsor Sen. John Cornyn. OK all good.
If I look up SKIL Bill on google though, immigration.about.com seems to think that the SKIL bill is S.2611. Possibly this one site is just confused?
more...
house tiger woods new girlfriend
IAF
06-11 09:38 AM
one thing for sure there is nothing to lose. May
tattoo Meet Alyse Lahti Johnston
indian111
09-20 02:13 PM
My attorney asked me to send a copy of my GC to make sure the info is correctly printed. Is it ok send it to them?
more...
pictures Woods#39; New Girlfriend
webm
06-19 03:26 PM
Good to know about this..Thanks for the info..
dresses Tiger Woods
gc_dega_gandhigiri
10-09 09:55 PM
As per this link
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY07AnnualReportTableVp2.pdf
Foreign State 1st 2nd 3rd 3rd Other Workers 3rd Total 4th 4th Certain Religious Workers 4th Total
India 2,855 6,203 17,795 190 17,985 278 79 357
I see that India got around 27400 Gcs. Does it mean spill over was happening during FY 2007? I was under the impression it started since FY 2008.
Correct me If I am wrong ?
Infact I am waiting for FY 2008 stats now. Wanna see how much spill over we got.
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY07AnnualReportTableVp2.pdf
Foreign State 1st 2nd 3rd 3rd Other Workers 3rd Total 4th 4th Certain Religious Workers 4th Total
India 2,855 6,203 17,795 190 17,985 278 79 357
I see that India got around 27400 Gcs. Does it mean spill over was happening during FY 2007? I was under the impression it started since FY 2008.
Correct me If I am wrong ?
Infact I am waiting for FY 2008 stats now. Wanna see how much spill over we got.
more...
makeup DATING TIGER?: Alyse Lahti
swede
08-19 04:50 PM
Yes it is.
For H1B, enter employer name and state:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
Just found out what my foreign coworkers make. Wish it would show all employees...
For H1B, enter employer name and state:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
Just found out what my foreign coworkers make. Wish it would show all employees...
girlfriend #39;Tiger Woods has been my next
chanduv23
05-14 01:44 PM
I entered US on H4. Then applied for H1 for software job. worked for 2 months last yr and then went for maternity leave.
Now I started working again and I still have to go for stamping.
I have completed CPA and I would like to move to an accounting firm ( they have to file my H1 transfer with accounting domain).
Is this going to cause any problem during H1 transfer or stamping??
Please advise me...
Thanks,
NSK.
Interesting question. SOmeone recently asked me the same thing. She came to US on H4 and is having a h1b being done by a body shopper as a QA tester in IT, but she is actually a pharmacist and would like to get a H1b transfer if she finds a good pharmacy job.
I am not sure how h1 transfers work in case it is different profession.
I guess they should work fine because people can have multiple skills, some people gain skills over time like say, people do MS or MBA while on h1b, and then apply for a different kind of job and get a transfer.
Gurus must be able to answer this question.
Now I started working again and I still have to go for stamping.
I have completed CPA and I would like to move to an accounting firm ( they have to file my H1 transfer with accounting domain).
Is this going to cause any problem during H1 transfer or stamping??
Please advise me...
Thanks,
NSK.
Interesting question. SOmeone recently asked me the same thing. She came to US on H4 and is having a h1b being done by a body shopper as a QA tester in IT, but she is actually a pharmacist and would like to get a H1b transfer if she finds a good pharmacy job.
I am not sure how h1 transfers work in case it is different profession.
I guess they should work fine because people can have multiple skills, some people gain skills over time like say, people do MS or MBA while on h1b, and then apply for a different kind of job and get a transfer.
Gurus must be able to answer this question.
hairstyles golf legend Tiger Woods,
cfa
05-18 08:58 PM
www.analystforum.com is the right place for it.
Thank you sir!
Thank you sir!
kingkon_2000
08-07 04:06 PM
Yesterday I received email that card production ordered and today it says I have to go through some ADIT processing. Does this mean that they require some additional documents for processing or verification. The exact message is as below...
"On August 6, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
During this step the formal decision (approved/denied) is written and the decision notice is mailed and/or emailed to the applicant/petitioner. You can use our current processing time to gauge when you can expect to receive a final decision.
"
Can anyone please tell me what this means.
Thanks in advance..
Bookmark and Share
"On August 6, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
During this step the formal decision (approved/denied) is written and the decision notice is mailed and/or emailed to the applicant/petitioner. You can use our current processing time to gauge when you can expect to receive a final decision.
"
Can anyone please tell me what this means.
Thanks in advance..
Bookmark and Share
pa_arora
02-07 04:03 PM
APs are taking twice as much as EADs. Does anyone has any idea why?
I see 2 LUDs on my AP on 5th and 6th but no news till now. Is it coming?
thanks
I see 2 LUDs on my AP on 5th and 6th but no news till now. Is it coming?
thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment