pscdk
01-20 08:35 PM
This is only for TSC...Hope they create similar intiative with NSC too.
wallpaper above hairstyle ideas,
days_go_by
08-01 02:53 PM
I am on 6th year and need to extend my h1b. My lawyer informs me that 45day letter from Backlog center is enough for 7th year extension.
I thought we need to get the screen-shot of pending labor as a proof for 7th year extension.
Does anyone got extension based on 45day letter for the 7th year or beyond....???
Thanks
.
---
it should be enough,
I thought we need to get the screen-shot of pending labor as a proof for 7th year extension.
Does anyone got extension based on 45day letter for the 7th year or beyond....???
Thanks
.
---
it should be enough,
optimist
09-23 05:04 PM
Friends,
LUD on my I-485 (TSC) had not changed for the last two years and I now find a soft LUD of 09/15/2009. Has anyone experienced recent LUDs on their pending I-485?
I am asking because I am wondering whether USCIS has really 'touched' my file or if this is just a regular 'batch update' that happened to all applications, may be because of the new website migration.
Appreciate your answers.
Thanks.
LUD on my I-485 (TSC) had not changed for the last two years and I now find a soft LUD of 09/15/2009. Has anyone experienced recent LUDs on their pending I-485?
I am asking because I am wondering whether USCIS has really 'touched' my file or if this is just a regular 'batch update' that happened to all applications, may be because of the new website migration.
Appreciate your answers.
Thanks.
2011 Hairstyle Side Bangs.
May2002PD
01-26 12:31 PM
I am on 8th H1b extension with approved I140 and 3yr extension. Now I want to join a new company, who does my H1B and will get 3yr extension on that. If my parent employer revokes my I140, will my new H1B (with new employer) gets void ? or is it still valid for me to work with new employer for next 3 years. I dont want to apply for LC and I140 with the new employer as I will be R2I in August 2007.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
ramya
09-20 05:03 PM
Hi,
i am looking out for some web design/development to build up my profile.
I dont want to be paid but it will build my resume and
also help in the long run when i apply for jobs later.
You can have a look at my website at www.purearts.net (http://www.purearts.net) to have a look at my works.
Regards
Ramya--
i am looking out for some web design/development to build up my profile.
I dont want to be paid but it will build my resume and
also help in the long run when i apply for jobs later.
You can have a look at my website at www.purearts.net (http://www.purearts.net) to have a look at my works.
Regards
Ramya--
Blog Feeds
09-24 03:20 AM
From TPMMuckraker: Late Update: AILA spokesman George Tzamaras confirms to TPMmuckraker that, according to an extensive search of the group's membership database, no one from South Carolina by the name Joe Wilson or Addison Wilson has ever been a member.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/american-immigration-lawyers-association-confirms-joe-wilson-was-never-a-member.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/american-immigration-lawyers-association-confirms-joe-wilson-was-never-a-member.html)
more...
johnnnnnyboy
05-19 07:13 AM
i know swift3d will import dxf files, which infini-d can export.
but is there anyway of getting animations (the movement over time parts) from infini-d to swift?
any help, much appreciated :)
[mac-os9 infin-d-4.5 swift3d-v2]
but is there anyway of getting animations (the movement over time parts) from infini-d to swift?
any help, much appreciated :)
[mac-os9 infin-d-4.5 swift3d-v2]
2010 Fringe bang hairstyle can go
gcdreamer05
11-07 03:42 PM
Just gather together to find out how many of us are left behind?:D
Hey admire you, you really have so much patience , how can you smile happily inspite of having a 2002 PD :(
Hey admire you, you really have so much patience , how can you smile happily inspite of having a 2002 PD :(
more...
wandmaker
10-27 05:14 PM
If you call USCIS 1800 number, and you ask the representative to raise a service request then they email the service center asking for details. Most of the time, personnel from service center will call back with the information that you have requested. If you learn there is a way you can email the service center, please post here.
hair Hayden Panettiere hairstyle
qtoask
06-20 12:06 PM
poll here : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5379
more...
Green.Tech
10-01 02:13 PM
^^^^^^^^^
hot hairstyle with side bangs,
shantanup
03-20 10:35 AM
I got my DL reneul yesterday..there want any Visa question asked at all..??..Is texas not following DL reneual only untill your visa expiry date??..:confused:
Even I got my TX DL renewed for 6 more years 2-3 months ago and that too on internet. Texas is a real liberal state! Michigan sucks.
Even I got my TX DL renewed for 6 more years 2-3 months ago and that too on internet. Texas is a real liberal state! Michigan sucks.
more...
house Short Side Fringe Hairstyles
sounakc
05-27 12:02 PM
thanks for your prompt response.
tattoo layered hairstyles side swept
sab
07-19 05:11 PM
...
more...
pictures Side Fringe Hairstyles
dohko
05-06 09:33 AM
If you're waiting for your OPT you're not out of status even if your F1 visa is expired
As long as you have a D/s I94 and a valid I20
As long as you have a D/s I94 and a valid I20
dresses hairstyle with side bangs
Viz2007
12-09 02:40 AM
Hi everybody,
I am in pretty awkward situation. i have got my H1b Stamped in august 2008. Did not go to US because of the bad market situation and opted for woking in India. Now my current indian comapny wants me to travel to US on business visa( i have got B1 stamped in 2004 for 10 years) for 1-2 weeks.
Now i want to know , if i have both the visa stamped( H1b & B1), can i travel to US on business visa without affetcing my H1B visa because i am planning to go US whenever i hear that market is improving.
[/B]
I am in pretty awkward situation. i have got my H1b Stamped in august 2008. Did not go to US because of the bad market situation and opted for woking in India. Now my current indian comapny wants me to travel to US on business visa( i have got B1 stamped in 2004 for 10 years) for 1-2 weeks.
Now i want to know , if i have both the visa stamped( H1b & B1), can i travel to US on business visa without affetcing my H1B visa because i am planning to go US whenever i hear that market is improving.
[/B]
more...
makeup with fringe side bangs.
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
girlfriend 2009 hairstyle with side swept
boston_gc
04-14 06:39 PM
Does anyone know when house/senate going to take any action on EB retrogression? Or may be my guess is as good as anyone's??
hairstyles side fringe hairstyle.
raysaikat
08-04 11:36 PM
Could anyone please provide me some links that have information about future employement green cards? I am working with a consultant who is willing to work with me on this but wants more information about the process.
Thank you!!
You can do anything (including doing nothing). However it is the norm to work for the sponsoring employer (or the latest employer if you used AC21) for 6 month to 1 year to ensure that no question arises in future regarding the legitimacy of the job offer based on which your GC was approved.
Thank you!!
You can do anything (including doing nothing). However it is the norm to work for the sponsoring employer (or the latest employer if you used AC21) for 6 month to 1 year to ensure that no question arises in future regarding the legitimacy of the job offer based on which your GC was approved.
dano
05-10 07:14 PM
For how many years does the employer have to guarantee that it has funding to pay my salary? Or how does this thing work out. My employer has 300+ employees.
Any other requirements from the employer?
thanks
Any other requirements from the employer?
thanks
JeffDG
03-30 11:41 AM
I initially voted in favour of this, but on further reflection, I think this is bad policy and urge others to not support this.
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
No comments:
Post a Comment