SR lakshmi
01-17 02:30 AM
I applied I-140 in EB2 NIW category. I need to apply for H1 extension as this is my 5th year. I need to talk to my employer.
I see because of retrogression one cannot file for I-485.
Can I file for extension of H1 after I get I-140 approval or do I have to wait for I-1485 filing.
Please advise.
I see because of retrogression one cannot file for I-485.
Can I file for extension of H1 after I get I-140 approval or do I have to wait for I-1485 filing.
Please advise.
wallpaper hairstyles for long hair
webm
06-12 06:11 PM
hopefully they will give the extension from my expiry date which is Aug 28th 2008.--- Yes they will...
Blog Feeds
07-22 04:10 AM
While there are some politicians genuinely concerned about the subject of immigration who are backing anti-immigration laws because they believe in the cause, there are many more who have jumped on the anti-immigration bandwagon to score political points (John McCain - I'm talking to you). I wonder if politicians in small towns that don't have a lot of fat in their budgets are going to re-evaluate the costs and benefits when they have to explain to constituents why they have to pay hefty fees to plaintiffs in lawsuits like this one in a small town in Nebraska. Sure Sheriff Joe...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/aclu-sues-fremont-nebraska-over-antiimmigrant-ordinance.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/aclu-sues-fremont-nebraska-over-antiimmigrant-ordinance.html)
2011 Long Ponytail Hairstyles
popnfresh24
07-19 09:16 AM
It's still before midnight so i hope it's included :)
I took the photos myself and edited them... hope you like it
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/popnfresh24/OrangePopArt.jpg
I took the photos myself and edited them... hope you like it
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/popnfresh24/OrangePopArt.jpg
more...
needhelp!
01-15 03:41 PM
bump!
crystal
01-30 11:22 AM
any idea?
more...
Blog Feeds
06-27 02:00 AM
Not surprising, but surprising that Luis would admit it. And if this is the case (and I think it is), then the question is whether we wait until 2011 or later to push again or finally decide it's time to look at other strategies like piecemeal reform (pass DREAM, AgJobs, legal immigration reform now and deal with legalization later) or look at administrative actions like TPS or parole and a moratorium on deportations for people who would otherwise meet the requirements of a proposed legalization program.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/gutierrez-not-enough-dems-to-pass-reform-this-year.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/gutierrez-not-enough-dems-to-pass-reform-this-year.html)
2010 Long Ponytail Hairstyles
ysramu
01-02 02:58 PM
Thank you. It initiates another lengthy process & fight with employer.
more...
hunkuncontrolled
03-04 05:53 PM
I think people who haven't applied for their green card until now won't ever be able to do so....DOL won't ever make PERM certifications easier.
hair Ponytail Hairstyles For Medium
augustus
09-10 03:04 PM
All,
I recently received my FP appointment date, but I have to be on a conference the previous day. If everything goes well, I can arrive to my appointment without any problem.
But if my flight is delayed or cancelled I might risk being late to the appointment. My appointment is 10:00 am in the morning, are they very strict about the timing for FP appointment, or can we go a little late if we were delayed? Can you please share your experience?
Also, How early should we call in to postpone the appointment?
I recently received my FP appointment date, but I have to be on a conference the previous day. If everything goes well, I can arrive to my appointment without any problem.
But if my flight is delayed or cancelled I might risk being late to the appointment. My appointment is 10:00 am in the morning, are they very strict about the timing for FP appointment, or can we go a little late if we were delayed? Can you please share your experience?
Also, How early should we call in to postpone the appointment?
more...
gimme Green!!
08-04 01:24 PM
I got mine end last month.
Please see attached link from Murthy website. http://www.murthy.com/news/n_daylet.html
This is posted for information only. Any members affected by backlogs and haven't received their 45-day letters please contact your attorneys.
Please see attached link from Murthy website. http://www.murthy.com/news/n_daylet.html
This is posted for information only. Any members affected by backlogs and haven't received their 45-day letters please contact your attorneys.
hot wallpaper Prom Hair Side
Blog Feeds
11-10 03:50 PM
When I was in law school at the University of Chicago, our economics-oriented professors would often refer to "widgets" when they needed to refer to an unnamed manufactured object. A widget is really an "any object" that is interchangeable with other widgets. The idea is that you can focus on broader economic principles if you can keep the student from focusing on the particulars of a given industry. And despite a stated concern for workers, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) really think of workers as widgets - interchangeable cogs in the world of business. They are proposing...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/senators-think-workers-are-widgets.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/senators-think-workers-are-widgets.html)
more...
house prom hairstyles for long hair
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
tattoo Short Prom Hairstyles | Prom
roseball
07-10 04:58 PM
Couldnt resist replying:
DOS = Denial of Service = Dept of State.
:D :D :D
DOS = Denial of Service = Dept of State.
:D :D :D
more...
pictures long hair homecoming updos
jungalee43
11-07 12:01 PM
Though I have started only one theread in last three years of my membership, I can't resist a temptation to start one now. From the following article in WSJ the lame duck session now appears certain and it is going to be in this month !!!!!!!!!!!!
The link does not require user ID and passowrd. I am late on sending my e-mails on housing crisis and emplyment based green cards. But I am going to do it right now. I urge all the members to do the same. Though I am not sure whther they will take up HR 5882 or any other relief language, no harm in hoping and praying.
The link to WSJ article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122600310456906045.html
__________________________________________________ _
Contribution so far $1000+
The link does not require user ID and passowrd. I am late on sending my e-mails on housing crisis and emplyment based green cards. But I am going to do it right now. I urge all the members to do the same. Though I am not sure whther they will take up HR 5882 or any other relief language, no harm in hoping and praying.
The link to WSJ article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122600310456906045.html
__________________________________________________ _
Contribution so far $1000+
dresses New cool Ponytail hairstyles
logiclife
03-07 11:35 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3396
more...
makeup Ponytail Hairstyle for Long
rajsenthil
04-29 12:22 PM
I too got the lud for the same date as yours. From the earlier posting, I read that it could be a batch process, which might gave updated the record.
girlfriend Fasten the hair to your head
ilikekilo
01-24 07:21 PM
nice gesture there
hairstyles Cute Long Ponytail Haircut
ksvreg
04-12 02:42 PM
I was keep observing the PERM approval rate trend for the past one year. Approval rate is very slow. But it is suddently jumped since last month. Looks like it is a good time to start filing another labor. I am in the same boat. Trying for a new employer for EB2.
need_info
03-11 06:41 AM
Hi,
I hold a H1B Visa from Company A, which is valid until Sep 2010. I have not used this Visa since the stamping is done.
I am working in India from an X Company and because of the recession and bad job market at US, I did not make use of my H1B Visa.
But now my Employer (Company A) has an in-house project in US. So, I am planning to enter US on my H1B Visa now.
1) What documentation is required to show at the Port of Entry?
2) Since my Visa is going to expire by Sept 2010, which is just 6 months validity, will there be any issues / queries at the Port of Entry.
I hold a H1B Visa from Company A, which is valid until Sep 2010. I have not used this Visa since the stamping is done.
I am working in India from an X Company and because of the recession and bad job market at US, I did not make use of my H1B Visa.
But now my Employer (Company A) has an in-house project in US. So, I am planning to enter US on my H1B Visa now.
1) What documentation is required to show at the Port of Entry?
2) Since my Visa is going to expire by Sept 2010, which is just 6 months validity, will there be any issues / queries at the Port of Entry.
tabletpc
11-19 09:18 AM
I was not sure where to put this question. But would apprecite if anyone can reply to this based on the knowledge they have.
I know a friend who has done Bachelors in Computer Application in india. She is now in US and wanted to know the options for working or studying in US.
Is she eligible to take up MS degree..???
Is she eligible for H1b..???
Any suggestions will be greatly apprecited. I apologize if this questions does not suite this discussion forum.
Looking forward to your suggestions..
I know a friend who has done Bachelors in Computer Application in india. She is now in US and wanted to know the options for working or studying in US.
Is she eligible to take up MS degree..???
Is she eligible for H1b..???
Any suggestions will be greatly apprecited. I apologize if this questions does not suite this discussion forum.
Looking forward to your suggestions..
0 comments:
Post a Comment