WFGC2006
02-20 08:41 PM
Got laid off two months ago. After some painful job search, I accepted an offer with paid relocation. Then that idiot in my head starts murmuring that I will have trouble with the "Same or Similar" requirement for using AC21.
Did anyone here ever get an RFE for employment verification after invoking AC21? How did it go?
I always think it's very difficult evaluating the similarity of two jobs by reading their job descriptions.
Thanks,
Did anyone here ever get an RFE for employment verification after invoking AC21? How did it go?
I always think it's very difficult evaluating the similarity of two jobs by reading their job descriptions.
Thanks,
wallpaper War of the Worlds 2:
test005
05-09 10:52 AM
Please suggest.
I would like to know which of the following process is faster, better and efficient
� Application of I-485 using approved I-140 (EB2, current now, I-140 approved)
� Application of I-485 using diversity visa (Case number will be current in July)
I would like to know which of the following process is faster, better and efficient
� Application of I-485 using approved I-140 (EB2, current now, I-140 approved)
� Application of I-485 using diversity visa (Case number will be current in July)
Pandi
12-11 07:41 PM
I have a peculiar situation where my wife wants to apply for H1 and work after being on H4 for the last 3 years . My son who is currently on H4 wants to convert to F1 to pursue his studies . My doubt is whether I can still include them in my GC application at 485 stage whenever it happens although they were in H4 when the GC Process started.
Any suggestion / advice is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Pandi
Any suggestion / advice is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Pandi
2011 2011 War of the Worlds 2
Blog Feeds
10-23 09:30 PM
There is no doubt that the H-1B program has been the subject of intense scrutiny and contentious debate over the last several years. Indeed, there have been many recent (both successful and unsuccessful) attempts to restrict the use of H1-B visas through legislation. Despite the prevalent backlash, the largest users of H-1B workers continue to defend their H-1B policies, with a call for the elimination of a yearly quota or cap. Under current law, USCIS can approve up to 85,000 new H-1B petitions, with 20,000 set aside for advanced degree graduates of universities in the United States. This year, for...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2009/10/the-h1b-quota-has-the-time-come-for-its-demise.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2009/10/the-h1b-quota-has-the-time-come-for-its-demise.html)
more...
ramaonline
03-05 06:29 PM
You can get reimbursement for all eligible expenses but you will not get the tax benefit. The taxes due on that amount will be accounted for at the time of filing your return. You can submit claims and get them reimbursed.
sargon
10-20 11:51 AM
please reply to linked thread.
more...
nishu
01-26 10:00 AM
Thanks....
My university does not offer CPT courses. Is it true that I can stay in US legally (from May-Oct) if the company has applied for my H1?
My university does not offer CPT courses. Is it true that I can stay in US legally (from May-Oct) if the company has applied for my H1?
2010 War of the Worlds: Screenshot
shashi_nehal
10-24 12:10 PM
Hi,
My wife is working for US firm on L2 VISA (EAD).
The employer is ready to sponsor her GC. We wanted to know what is the process for L2 candidate , will it be same starting from Labor .... or we can skip labor and make use of current L2 EAD to file I-485 directly ?
My wife is working for US firm on L2 VISA (EAD).
The employer is ready to sponsor her GC. We wanted to know what is the process for L2 candidate , will it be same starting from Labor .... or we can skip labor and make use of current L2 EAD to file I-485 directly ?
more...
gcdeena
01-14 01:32 PM
Just i have applied for AP through efile. From here what's the procedure? Do i need to send the support documentation? if so, what are all the documents i need to send? please through some light on this. also will i get another bio metrics appointment?
with addition to above my questions, do i need to get stamped to maintain my H1 status? or will it be okay if enter thro' AP and working for my same employer to maintain my H1 status?
with addition to above my questions, do i need to get stamped to maintain my H1 status? or will it be okay if enter thro' AP and working for my same employer to maintain my H1 status?
hair BBC radio War Of The Worlds
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
more...
Blog Feeds
02-15 09:20 PM
British-born Stan Brock is the founder of Remote Area Medical (RAM), a non-profit health care company that has helped organize volunteer physicians, eye doctors, dentists and support staff to set up weekend-long events in large venues that offer vital health care services to the poor and uninsured. RAM has hosted 581 events and treated more than 500,000 people with the volunteer services of 45,000 health care professionals. According to Business TN Magazine: RAM is largely supported by small donations, and volunteers pay their own travel, lodging and food expenses. While many patients seen at these events are local, it's not...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/immigrant-of-the-day-stan-brock-health-care-hero.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/immigrant-of-the-day-stan-brock-health-care-hero.html)
hot updated War Of The Worlds,
atlgc
01-09 10:22 AM
hello Folks ,
can we apply ac21 on your own , if so where can i find the link for the forms etc ..
i have all the documents such as copies of 140 etc ..
please advise and help
thanks
can we apply ac21 on your own , if so where can i find the link for the forms etc ..
i have all the documents such as copies of 140 etc ..
please advise and help
thanks
more...
house War of the Worlds 2
sujijag
06-05 01:29 AM
I work for Employer A (who holds my H1) and I have an approved I-140 from Employer B, I-485 pending. Am due for H1B renewal this Dec, can I use my I-140 Approval (done from Employer B) to get 3 year extension when Employer A applies ?
Any Legal opinions will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance !
Any Legal opinions will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance !
tattoo War Of The Worlds
anandrajesh
02-03 04:30 PM
Hi,
Can someone tell me a little bit about visitor visa validity dates. For eg: if my parents got a 3 month visa, is it valid from the date it is issued or from the date of entry into the US?
Thanks
Roshni
It is valid from the date it is issued and they shld enter the US before it expires. However at the port of entry, the consular officer may chose it give it beyond the actual expiry date.
Can someone tell me a little bit about visitor visa validity dates. For eg: if my parents got a 3 month visa, is it valid from the date it is issued or from the date of entry into the US?
Thanks
Roshni
It is valid from the date it is issued and they shld enter the US before it expires. However at the port of entry, the consular officer may chose it give it beyond the actual expiry date.
more...
pictures 2010 Worlds 2: Th e Next Wave
HalfDog
03-09 07:29 PM
Cinema 4D?
dresses War Of The Worlds Live On Stage 2006 part 2
fasterthanlight�
05-02 12:56 AM
Chris and Meg have yet to be made into stamps. However, here are these:
more...
makeup #39;War of the Worlds 2: The
sxk
10-26 12:53 PM
My law firm applied my EAD/AP/485 on Aug 13th. I got my Receipt Notices for all three.
My question is where does USCIS send the FP Notice and EAD?
Do they send it to my house address or lawyer?
My question is where does USCIS send the FP Notice and EAD?
Do they send it to my house address or lawyer?
girlfriend The War of the Worlds (MP3)
ravi98
10-25 02:26 PM
Things that make it harder to push for immigration legislation - legal or illegal. New Figures Detail Depth Of Unemployment Misery, Lower Earnings For All But Super Wealthy (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/income_inequality_statistics_tax_code__n_773392.ht ml)
hairstyles hairstyles War Of The Worlds 2
mojo_jojo
02-24 08:26 PM
what do I have to do?
Will I be contacted by the Goverment via snail mail?
In general, how long more do I have to wait?
:confused::(
Will I be contacted by the Goverment via snail mail?
In general, how long more do I have to wait?
:confused::(
rodnyb
12-22 02:26 PM
The inventory number does not include the EB1 and EB2ROW filings, which are always C and out of queue/approved in less than 6 months. They are not shown in inventory numbers.
DHS yearly statistics
DHS | Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/yearbook.shtm)
Show that they approve over 60K per year on average (for past 10 years) for EB1 and EB2ROW (EB2 Korea is huge as well)
When we calculate, we should deduct 60K from 140K
The situation is not optimistic
DHS yearly statistics
DHS | Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/yearbook.shtm)
Show that they approve over 60K per year on average (for past 10 years) for EB1 and EB2ROW (EB2 Korea is huge as well)
When we calculate, we should deduct 60K from 140K
The situation is not optimistic
nousername
08-24 04:09 PM
When you travel on AP carry both the copies. On the PoE the IO will keep one and give the second to you after it is stamped. You use the returned/stamped Copy for your future travel
When one applies for AP in Multiple entry category they will be given 2 AP dox. lets say if one has used both on travelling like both has stamp of POE can they reuse the same for future travel with in the one year period of validity ?
When one applies for AP in Multiple entry category they will be given 2 AP dox. lets say if one has used both on travelling like both has stamp of POE can they reuse the same for future travel with in the one year period of validity ?
No comments:
Post a Comment