Blog Feeds
03-29 07:50 AM
Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Mark Udall (D-CO) have reintroduced the start up visa bill now that the new Congress is in session. The bill would grant two-year visas to entrepreneurs if they secure $100,000 from qualified investors. After two years, the start up must have at least five employees and $500,000 invested. Democrats and Republicans have talked endlessly that the focus in Washington should be on job creation, but for the most part little has been done. The start up visa is a way to directly create jobs and costs the taxpayers nothing.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/03/senators-introduce-modified-start-up-visa.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/03/senators-introduce-modified-start-up-visa.html)
wallpaper Bethenny Frankel#39;s wedding
sgupta33
02-25 01:58 PM
If you go to the USCIS website (www.uscis.gov) you can download the EAD application and the list of documents that you are required to submit. My understanding is that the location where you file your EAD is dependent on the State where you live. The EAd application instructions include information on where to file depending on the State where you live.
stxvr
11-26 12:07 PM
I am on H1B and planning to go for CP. I have to fill the form DS-230 for this and submit to VSF office.
Currently I am on H1B extension and I don't have visa stamped for this extension on my passport.
In this form DS-230 I need to fill field name "Present Address".
I have following question:
- In this form what should I fill my present address
Indian address
OR
US address.
(what I think: I think when I will submit the forms to VSF I will be in india and at that time i will not have the valid visa to enter USA. So I think I should fill the indian address.)
What do you guys suggest?
Currently I am on H1B extension and I don't have visa stamped for this extension on my passport.
In this form DS-230 I need to fill field name "Present Address".
I have following question:
- In this form what should I fill my present address
Indian address
OR
US address.
(what I think: I think when I will submit the forms to VSF I will be in india and at that time i will not have the valid visa to enter USA. So I think I should fill the indian address.)
What do you guys suggest?
2011 girlfriend Bethenny+frankel+wedding+ ethenny frankel wedding ring cost.
Blog Feeds
05-07 02:20 PM
Ever the optimist and trying her best to think happy thoughts, Tinker Bell, the world's most famous faerie, has been flying over Washington this week. She soared into town, lifted up by throngs of May Day marchers who believed popular revulsion to Arizona's "Papers, please" law would finally jolt politicians into enacting comprehensive immigration reform. Hailing from the country of Neverland, Tinker flew in solidarity with the marchers, alarmed that she had entered the country without inspection and without papers, and that all she had in her pocket was faerie dust. Then she plummeted, almost to the ground, as she...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/05/tinker-bells-immigration-solution.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/05/tinker-bells-immigration-solution.html)
more...
permfiling
12-21 09:41 AM
I gave first FP on 9/28 and lat month I took info pass and the officer raised a SR for non delivery of cards to which I got a reply that my card might have lost in mail. I called USCIS who mentioned that my card was never created and now it will be created. Now my online status changes mentioning that I have been sent FP notice again. I called uscis again and mentioned that I already gave biometrics
The officer said it was erroneous so ignore the FP notice and he will be requesting CPO for me. I even called FBI FP line today to confirm that my first FP was fine and they said it was fine and uploaded
The officer said it was erroneous so ignore the FP notice and he will be requesting CPO for me. I even called FBI FP line today to confirm that my first FP was fine and they said it was fine and uploaded
kaarmaa
12-03 12:57 PM
Loo's only place is KKK
:eek::eek:
DUDE!! Delete this post. Thats a bad thing to say in a public forum.
:eek::eek:
DUDE!! Delete this post. Thats a bad thing to say in a public forum.
more...
sohilbt
08-06 08:25 AM
I am using Elizabeth Goss from TOCCI, GOSS & LEE, PC (http://www.lawtgl.com). She is wonderful.
2010 Bethenny Frankel#39;s Wedding
gsarkar
02-18 07:27 AM
Dear members,
I am working in India. I have an L1 petition which is valid from sep 2004 through sep 2007 from my company. When I went for visa stamping in 2004 the visa officer gave me a visa valid from sep 2004 through Nov 2005. This meant that I could enter US only in the first year of my petition but continue to stay legally in US on an I-94 through Sep 2007. As of today, I may have to leave for US in March 2007 on this L1 and my question is that if I go for a renewal at the US consulate will they renew my visa for a petition that will expire in Sep 2007. Considering that there are only 7 valid months left on the petition.
Thanks a lot.
I am working in India. I have an L1 petition which is valid from sep 2004 through sep 2007 from my company. When I went for visa stamping in 2004 the visa officer gave me a visa valid from sep 2004 through Nov 2005. This meant that I could enter US only in the first year of my petition but continue to stay legally in US on an I-94 through Sep 2007. As of today, I may have to leave for US in March 2007 on this L1 and my question is that if I go for a renewal at the US consulate will they renew my visa for a petition that will expire in Sep 2007. Considering that there are only 7 valid months left on the petition.
Thanks a lot.
more...
TkNeo
01-24 11:04 PM
I have I-140 approved and waiting for PD to become current. Wife , however, is from ROW country and i am looking to applying I-485 for both of us using Cross Chargeability.
Is Cross Chargeability guaranteed to work or do USCIS employees have a discretion if they approve it or not ?
After researching a lot it seems like lot of people have had a hard time in being successful in conveying their CC eligibility to USCIS. What is the difficulty in conveying CC eligibility to USCIS? It seems like people mentioned about their CC in a cover letter to their I-485 but USCIS would miss reading or understanding this information. What is the secret to successfully conveying CC eligibility to USCIS ?
Thanks in advance!
TK
Is Cross Chargeability guaranteed to work or do USCIS employees have a discretion if they approve it or not ?
After researching a lot it seems like lot of people have had a hard time in being successful in conveying their CC eligibility to USCIS. What is the difficulty in conveying CC eligibility to USCIS? It seems like people mentioned about their CC in a cover letter to their I-485 but USCIS would miss reading or understanding this information. What is the secret to successfully conveying CC eligibility to USCIS ?
Thanks in advance!
TK
hair and Bethenny Frankel says
myuname
06-25 11:58 AM
Can I use AC21 portability to move to another employer C or better yet use it to transfer 485 to current employer B using my EAD?
Any Insight? Thanks,
Any Insight? Thanks,
more...
Blog Feeds
08-10 12:00 PM
South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has said many times in the past that the GOP needs to move back to the middle on immigration reform. He's putting his money where his mouth is and is leading the GOP's pro-immigration wing as they work behind the scenes shaping the bill likely to be introduced in the next few weeks. The support of at least half a dozen Republican Senators will be critical since there will no doubt be Democrats who don't vote with their party.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/graham-likely-to-replace-mccain-as-gop-champion-of-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/graham-likely-to-replace-mccain-as-gop-champion-of-immigration-reform.html)
hot images Bethenny Frankel#39;s
tykishore
03-11 12:57 AM
Below is my situation regarding the change of status. Could you please help on this
My Wife Has entered US with H4 on April 16th 2006
Her H1 Visa Approved for her on : Oct 1st 2007
Worked on H1 with an Employer: May 2008 to Oct 2008
Later: From Oct 2008 to Now -- NO PAYSTUBS
Her employer advises her to cancel her H1 and change back to H4. Will there be any problem with this? And how do we go about it.
Also to add to the problem, I have actually filed my H1Visa extension which expires on May 09 and got an RFE on the same. My Employer is responding to the same. Based on this case, How do I go about applying for my wifes change of status
Would appreciate your help on this
My Wife Has entered US with H4 on April 16th 2006
Her H1 Visa Approved for her on : Oct 1st 2007
Worked on H1 with an Employer: May 2008 to Oct 2008
Later: From Oct 2008 to Now -- NO PAYSTUBS
Her employer advises her to cancel her H1 and change back to H4. Will there be any problem with this? And how do we go about it.
Also to add to the problem, I have actually filed my H1Visa extension which expires on May 09 and got an RFE on the same. My Employer is responding to the same. Based on this case, How do I go about applying for my wifes change of status
Would appreciate your help on this
more...
house Bethenny Frankel quickly
bupthmt
08-06 04:05 PM
Hi everyone,
I have come to this form for help of one thing: for a long time I know that when switching jobs using ac21 you need to make sure that the job code is same and job description is similar, i know from my approved 140&perm that mine is 15-1032 (computer engineer),
the job description of both company are 90% same.
But they know nothing about the job code and ask me what is this code and where this is used . Can somebody help me with this?
btw, my old job title is computer engineer, my new title is manager of computer system engineer. is that a problem ? if yes , if I asked them to demote that to computer system engineer leader, is it better?
thanks a lot in advance.
I have come to this form for help of one thing: for a long time I know that when switching jobs using ac21 you need to make sure that the job code is same and job description is similar, i know from my approved 140&perm that mine is 15-1032 (computer engineer),
the job description of both company are 90% same.
But they know nothing about the job code and ask me what is this code and where this is used . Can somebody help me with this?
btw, my old job title is computer engineer, my new title is manager of computer system engineer. is that a problem ? if yes , if I asked them to demote that to computer system engineer leader, is it better?
thanks a lot in advance.
tattoo Bethenny Frankel#39;s Wedding
archanadhar19
10-12 03:07 PM
Perm applied in May 2007 . Got audit in June . Responded within a week. No response since then. Company lawyer approached DOL 3 times checking for the labor status. No response.
Is it possible to resubmit the perm application retaining old date. Any suggestion if that might help.
Is it possible to resubmit the perm application retaining old date. Any suggestion if that might help.
more...
pictures Did Bethenny Frankel Try to
solaris27
05-17 10:38 AM
Hi
My brother's wife attended interview at delhi consulate for H4 visa and got 220g .
She had all required documents as required but they says " Your application required further administrative process and they will contact her ASAP" .
Attorny - Can you help us what opetions we have . How long it will take before she gets her H4 visa .
My brother is here in USA from last 9 years and never on bench .
Thanks
My brother's wife attended interview at delhi consulate for H4 visa and got 220g .
She had all required documents as required but they says " Your application required further administrative process and they will contact her ASAP" .
Attorny - Can you help us what opetions we have . How long it will take before she gets her H4 visa .
My brother is here in USA from last 9 years and never on bench .
Thanks
dresses Bethenny+frankel+married
Berkeleybee
03-01 01:53 PM
Please read and follow the forum posting guidelines now posted as an announcement above these forums.
best,
Berkeleybee
best,
Berkeleybee
more...
makeup Bethenny Frankel House
dpp
10-25 07:28 PM
Hope this bill helps us !!!:confused:
http://www.immigration-law.com/
It has more harm than good. H1B fees increased too much. I hope they will remove this H1B part from the final bill. Anyway Bush is ready to veto this bill for sure.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
It has more harm than good. H1B fees increased too much. I hope they will remove this H1B part from the final bill. Anyway Bush is ready to veto this bill for sure.
girlfriend ethenny frankel target bull
GCBy3000
07-26 12:26 PM
1. I am seeing that June'07 485 filer claiming to get GCs this month. If that is the case, then the possibility of pre-june cases of getting GC are also higher.
2. However, the service center processing times shows that they are processing only Aug'06 receipted AOS applications as of July 07. https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
If the statement 1 is true, then USCIS should have cleared most of the pre-july 07 cases. I say MOST and not ALL. In this scenario, the processing dates of service center in coming months SHOULD move to June - July 07 pretty soon (theoritically). Does anyone agree with this one?
2. However, the service center processing times shows that they are processing only Aug'06 receipted AOS applications as of July 07. https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
If the statement 1 is true, then USCIS should have cleared most of the pre-july 07 cases. I say MOST and not ALL. In this scenario, the processing dates of service center in coming months SHOULD move to June - July 07 pretty soon (theoritically). Does anyone agree with this one?
hairstyles Bethenny Frankel has herself a
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
crystal
09-12 09:29 AM
They are referring another rally I gues which is for un-documented one on Wed.Ours is on Tuesday
http://www.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_6866158
Are mexicans referring it to our rally as theirs???? Please someone clarify
http://www.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_6866158
Are mexicans referring it to our rally as theirs???? Please someone clarify
gimme Green!!
06-17 11:18 PM
Yes. you can file i140 and 485 concurrently
Engineer!!
Engineer!!
No comments:
Post a Comment