GPP
11-10 10:20 PM
i dont like it .. its . too dark?
wallpaper mary kate olsen with pale skin
nature
07-13 05:12 PM
I am sure with this whole fiasco something good will turn up. It might take long but it will be for betterment of us all. I am proud to be an IV member and fully commend their ongoing efforts.
Cocentrate on brighter side guys.
Cocentrate on brighter side guys.
jyo999
07-25 08:56 PM
I filed 485 on July 2nd with an EAD with receive notice date of march 2007. it is not approved yet. Will I get an EAD even before the I140 is approved or should the I140 be approved for the EAD to be issued.
Thanks
Thanks
2011 i have pale skin and green
validIV
03-10 02:32 PM
Check out this article:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/04/smallbusiness/foreign_worker_visas_applications_down.smb/index.htm?postversion=2009030515
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/04/smallbusiness/foreign_worker_visas_applications_down.smb/index.htm?postversion=2009030515
more...
chrisclick
08-23 08:41 AM
Its ok... Eyes look abit freaky.
Not actually a stamp I'd put on a letter to my grandmother
True
Not actually a stamp I'd put on a letter to my grandmother
True
poorninuke
01-29 11:58 PM
Hi Guru's,
I am currently in INDIA and applying for my H1. I have a couple of questions regarding this:
Back Ground:
1. My husband and myself are applying for H1 B.
2. Company A is sponsoring H1 for my husband and company B is applying for H1 for me.
Q & A:
1. As H1 B is lottery system this time too, we both are applying for H1. Is it possible that, if both of us get H1's, can I still enter into US on H4 status and later convert to H1.
Your valuable suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Regards
Poorni
I am currently in INDIA and applying for my H1. I have a couple of questions regarding this:
Back Ground:
1. My husband and myself are applying for H1 B.
2. Company A is sponsoring H1 for my husband and company B is applying for H1 for me.
Q & A:
1. As H1 B is lottery system this time too, we both are applying for H1. Is it possible that, if both of us get H1's, can I still enter into US on H4 status and later convert to H1.
Your valuable suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Regards
Poorni
more...
factoryman
06-15 11:29 AM
I haven't looked, but there is a speicific link.
AOS vs Consular Processing [JH3090] (http://www.jackson-hertogs.com/JH/memos/3090.pdf)
AOS vs Consular Processing [JH3090] (http://www.jackson-hertogs.com/JH/memos/3090.pdf)
2010 green eyes and londe hair
pd_recapturing
04-22 04:39 PM
This is what, I saw on Ron's forum. We would need to continue what IV has been suggesting since long .....
Can USCIS be sued for picking files in random ( the only time they budge is when a federal judge put an order ).
Ron Gotcher: Anyone can be sued for anything. In the absence of a large, well funded group of plaintiffs, however, I don't see this kind of suit going anywhere. For now, the remedy is Congress. Organize a group to initiate a letter writing campaign to Congress. Write to your own Congressman, your two Senators, and the chairs of the Senate (Kennedy) and House (Loftgren) immigration sub-committees. Get the facts straight and offer as much emprical evidence as possible. If Congress were to receive 100,000 such letters, they would definitely do something about this problem.
Can USCIS be sued for picking files in random ( the only time they budge is when a federal judge put an order ).
Ron Gotcher: Anyone can be sued for anything. In the absence of a large, well funded group of plaintiffs, however, I don't see this kind of suit going anywhere. For now, the remedy is Congress. Organize a group to initiate a letter writing campaign to Congress. Write to your own Congressman, your two Senators, and the chairs of the Senate (Kennedy) and House (Loftgren) immigration sub-committees. Get the facts straight and offer as much emprical evidence as possible. If Congress were to receive 100,000 such letters, they would definitely do something about this problem.
more...
Macaca
05-19 07:30 AM
A New Reality in Washington, but Can It Last? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19assess.html) By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
hair green eyes and londe hair
dealsnet
08-27 04:53 PM
No. You can't port PD from spouse.
You can port your own PD, if you have another EB3 approved.
You can port the country of chargeability, if she was born in another (ROW) country.
My priority date is in 10/2006 under EB3. My wife just start her GC process under EB2. Can my wife port my PD date to her GC application?
Thanks!
You can port your own PD, if you have another EB3 approved.
You can port the country of chargeability, if she was born in another (ROW) country.
My priority date is in 10/2006 under EB3. My wife just start her GC process under EB2. Can my wife port my PD date to her GC application?
Thanks!
more...
ramprasad_r
02-03 12:34 PM
Hello All,
I had attended H1 interview in last week of Nov 2007. I had got 221g BLUE form to submit additional documents from Petitioner.
I submitted all documents through VFS drop box in last week of Jan 2008. Does anyone has any idea within how many weeks time we will get some response from Chennai consulate?
I was not asked to submit passport and hence I havent submitted passport.
I appreciate any inputs from any one.
Regards,
Ram
I had attended H1 interview in last week of Nov 2007. I had got 221g BLUE form to submit additional documents from Petitioner.
I submitted all documents through VFS drop box in last week of Jan 2008. Does anyone has any idea within how many weeks time we will get some response from Chennai consulate?
I was not asked to submit passport and hence I havent submitted passport.
I appreciate any inputs from any one.
Regards,
Ram
hot I have green eyes.
mkrao
10-04 02:08 PM
My I 140 was transferred from NSC to washington DC office on July 27, 2007. Since then, Online case status does not say anything more than this. I am in my 7th year and worried. Does anyone has any idea as to why I 140 cases are transferred to local offices. Do local offices have authority to decide on I 140 cases? How long would it take for the local office to send a decision on it? How do I ollow up with the case? Attorneys / gurus please help..
more...
house Hair Fair Skin Blue Eyes
div_bell_2003
07-07 06:40 PM
You are only counted against the quota once for a 6 year period , so I believe, she won't come under the quota , although it's getting harder to get H1B extensions every day
tattoo Green eyes, blondish hair,
ankitab617
07-27 03:57 AM
I have applied for my I-485 ( PD: jan 2007- EB2, India).
I want to leave MS and join a different company now ...Question is do you know if MS withdraws I-140 ????
does anybody know what is the official policy ?? Please respond to me with a PM if you think it is inappropriate to discuss publicly...
Thanks
-A
I want to leave MS and join a different company now ...Question is do you know if MS withdraws I-140 ????
does anybody know what is the official policy ?? Please respond to me with a PM if you think it is inappropriate to discuss publicly...
Thanks
-A
more...
pictures I have green eyes, fair skin.
mrsr
06-20 12:34 PM
The employement letter has the old address on their letter head,
Is it going to cause any problem.
Is it going to cause any problem.
dresses fair skin, londe hair,
martinvisalaw
09-21 12:29 PM
Both cards should arrive to the address that CIS has on file for the couple. The wife's departure from the US should not affect this. However, she needs to have the card to return to the US, ideally. Hopefully husband can send her the card.
more...
makeup Dark Hair And Green Eyes,
mmk123
08-04 12:46 PM
sorry, posted on wrong forum initially.
Reposting with new thread.
****
Applied: April first week - it went in 2010 rush
Received: April last week
RFE: June first week
July first week: RFE response sent
July last week: Approval notice sent
August first week: approval notice received
Documents requested for RFE (also suggested by lawyer):
- Client Letter, role/responsibilities, duties, technologies used, company profile etc.
This letter also clearly stated all entities involved and their relationships with each other.
- Purchase Order and Other contract related stuff (all possible). Everyone co-operated.
- Badge (main bulding, her office), timesheets
- photos (cubicle/office building,company logo etc), login screen, machine etc, client phone directory
- copies of recent pay stub and offer letter, job duties
Thanks to everyone who contribute on this forum. It helped us a lot. This is for my wife.
Reposting with new thread.
****
Applied: April first week - it went in 2010 rush
Received: April last week
RFE: June first week
July first week: RFE response sent
July last week: Approval notice sent
August first week: approval notice received
Documents requested for RFE (also suggested by lawyer):
- Client Letter, role/responsibilities, duties, technologies used, company profile etc.
This letter also clearly stated all entities involved and their relationships with each other.
- Purchase Order and Other contract related stuff (all possible). Everyone co-operated.
- Badge (main bulding, her office), timesheets
- photos (cubicle/office building,company logo etc), login screen, machine etc, client phone directory
- copies of recent pay stub and offer letter, job duties
Thanks to everyone who contribute on this forum. It helped us a lot. This is for my wife.
girlfriend Looks:Brown hair,pale skin
chanduv23
03-21 08:58 PM
Dear New Yorkers, lets keep promoting this group as well as bumping this thread so that more members will join
Join IV-NY (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationvoiceny) mailing list. Please promote this group and add more members
Join IV-NY (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationvoiceny) mailing list. Please promote this group and add more members
hairstyles Erin\\#39;s beauty stats: 30; fair
senk1s
10-10 07:21 PM
hopefully we'll get our receipts soon ...
very similar timeline like shams
very similar timeline like shams
PundaSmith
12-17 09:52 PM
Hello,
I am in the process of gathering my documents for EB1 filling. My lawyer and I went through my publication list today.
I have a number of peer reviewed publications that have been accepted and available online (with DOI - Digital Identification Identifiers) but have not yet made it to paper copies.
My lawyer is hesitant to include these "Online First" articles since they are not technically out He claimed that immigration tends to lean towards traditional publication channels and therefore it would be preferable to since technically, they are still in press.
Is this accurate? Under what conditions can one include accepted (online first) publications?
Thanks - PundaSmith
I am in the process of gathering my documents for EB1 filling. My lawyer and I went through my publication list today.
I have a number of peer reviewed publications that have been accepted and available online (with DOI - Digital Identification Identifiers) but have not yet made it to paper copies.
My lawyer is hesitant to include these "Online First" articles since they are not technically out He claimed that immigration tends to lean towards traditional publication channels and therefore it would be preferable to since technically, they are still in press.
Is this accurate? Under what conditions can one include accepted (online first) publications?
Thanks - PundaSmith
Comiccmadd
07-22 05:41 AM
lol. honestly i can see it. sorry for that here is the link :S
http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac8/Jellyfish103/calligraphicstyle.jpg
http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac8/Jellyfish103/calligraphicstyle.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment