Dhundhun
07-12 08:20 PM
I got grey dot for above response. Can't make out, what the person giving feedback wants to say.
wallpaper Water for Elephants Trailer
Blog Feeds
03-31 03:40 PM
Good. Members of Congress who think Latino voters aren't paying attention and they can vote anti-immigrant to keep Tea Party activists happy may want to rethink that strategy. In related news. America's Voice has released poll data showing Latino voters are not energized and aren't planning on coming out in big numbers in November unless they seem some positive action on immigration reform. From America's Voice: Latino Decisions researcher and Stanford University professor Dr. Gary Segura highlighted and analyzed the findings: �Among all the key constituents in the 2008 Obama victory, Latino voters appear to be among the least enthusiastic...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/latino-groups-to-score-members-of-congress-on-immigration-issues.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/latino-groups-to-score-members-of-congress-on-immigration-issues.html)
franklin
07-10 02:24 PM
What is this group and how is it connected to IV?
2011 Water For Elephants hits
SGP
09-09 04:12 PM
How I wish the date for EB3-I were at 08NOV03. :mad:
more...
pa_arora
07-19 02:32 PM
Hi
I have a couple questions:confused: -
1) Can I file EAD/AP now; I applied 485 on July 3 (no receipt number yet, but application received by USCIS)?
2) What all docs are required for filing EAD & AP? I want to file it myself.
I have a couple questions:confused: -
1) Can I file EAD/AP now; I applied 485 on July 3 (no receipt number yet, but application received by USCIS)?
2) What all docs are required for filing EAD & AP? I want to file it myself.
prem_goel
06-16 07:37 PM
I've been visiting forums for the past 2 weeks since my petition at CSC is pending under Premium Processing. I don't think this is accurate especially for I-129 pending at CSC, VSC as I see in the forums that for several people its taking more than 2 months for regular H-1B.
IN my case, I filed under PP at CSC on 25th May. They received via fedex on 27th May, but they issued me a receipt on 6th June only. Going at all the forums, it appears its happening with everyone. Then they issue a RFE on the 14th day of the receipt.
IN my case, I filed under PP at CSC on 25th May. They received via fedex on 27th May, but they issued me a receipt on 6th June only. Going at all the forums, it appears its happening with everyone. Then they issue a RFE on the 14th day of the receipt.
more...
miguy
07-19 08:06 AM
If I file my I-485 through my lawyer, will I have to be with him for all subsequent EAD/AP renewals as well or can I renew them on my own?
Do lawyers charge extra for EAD/AP renwals?
Do lawyers charge extra for EAD/AP renwals?
2010 For Elephants trailer for
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.
more...
krishna_brc
06-20 11:33 PM
Marriage based green card for persons already in the US (http://www..com/greencard/familybasedimmigration/persons-in-us.html)
hair For Elephants trailer for
kirupa
07-15 11:54 PM
Added :)
more...
Macaca
05-19 07:54 AM
3 Months of Tense Talks Led to Immigration Deal (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) and ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
hot Water for Elephants - Trailer
Bobby Digital
November 13th, 2005, 10:50 AM
How do I post to the monthly contest and keep the pictures in my albums? If I copy the images it posts them again in the "today's photos". Is there a way to post to just your album without them going to "today's photos"?
more...
house water for elephants trailer
speddi
07-21 11:03 PM
Hi,
Company A filed I-485 (PD Aug 28, 2006). Another Company B filed for I-140 with a pre-approved labor dated Nov 23,2005. If the I-140 gets approved from Company B, can I use that to port my priority date to Nov 23, 2005? If I move to Company B after porting the PD, do I have to stay with Company B and if so how long?
(I am planning to stay with Company A for 6 months and then move to Company B using AC21. )
Thanks,
Company A filed I-485 (PD Aug 28, 2006). Another Company B filed for I-140 with a pre-approved labor dated Nov 23,2005. If the I-140 gets approved from Company B, can I use that to port my priority date to Nov 23, 2005? If I move to Company B after porting the PD, do I have to stay with Company B and if so how long?
(I am planning to stay with Company A for 6 months and then move to Company B using AC21. )
Thanks,
tattoo Water For Elephants Trailer:
pd052009
03-24 11:45 AM
Countdown: 38 More days to go (Incl. today)
Required Yes Votes : 5000
Read from the below link for more details
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2243885-post2.html (Support Thread for "I485 filing w/o Curr. PD" initiative)
Required Yes Votes : 5000
Read from the below link for more details
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2243885-post2.html (Support Thread for "I485 filing w/o Curr. PD" initiative)
more...
pictures Water for Elephants (Trailer
logiclife
03-07 11:35 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3396
dresses For Elephants trailer for
akhilmahajan
03-11 12:43 PM
Can the other New England states join this Action Item?
GO I/WE GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
GO I/WE GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
more...
makeup Water for Elephants - Review
gausoni@hotmail.com
09-23 04:56 PM
my pd march 2002 pending 485 any estimated time to get 485 approved?
girlfriend For Elephants trailer for
Macaca
03-18 07:25 AM
Some paras from Congress's Oversight Offensive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601989.html), By David S. Broder (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/david+s.+broder/), Sunday, March 18, 2007
Ten weeks into the new Congress, it is clear that revelation, not legislation, is going to be its real product.
While President Bush threatens to use his veto pen to stop some bills and Senate Republicans block other measures from even reaching his desk, no force in Washington can halt the Democrats' investigative juggernaut from uncovering the secrets inside this administration.
For the first six years of the Bush administration, these aides were allowed free rein to carry out whatever policy or political assignments they wished -- or supposed that the president wanted done. A Congress under firm Republican control was somnolent when it came to oversight of the executive branch. No Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration.
You have to feel a twinge of sympathy now for the Bush appointees who suddenly find unsympathetic Democratic chairmen such as Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy and Carl Levin investigating their cases. Even if those appointees are scrupulously careful about their actions now, who knows what subpoenaed memos and e-mails in their files will reveal about the past?
They will pay the price for the temporary breakdown in the system of checks and balances that occurred between 2001 and this year -- when the Republican Congress forgot its responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable.
It was a fundamental dereliction of duty by Congress, and it probably did more to encourage bad decisions and harmful actions by executive-branch political appointees than the much-touted lobbying influence. In reality, many Republican members of Congress did not mind what was happening because they were able to get favors done in that permissive climate. Now, the Democratic investigators will publicize instances of influence by members of Congress, and the political fallout will not stop with New Mexico's Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson.
Democrats find it easier to investigate than to legislate. With their major initiatives, from a minimum-wage boost to a shutdown of the Iraq war, stymied by Republican opposition, the Democrats are understandably making "accountability" their new goal -- meaning more and more investigations.
Fulfilling that promise, later in the week the House passed a series of bills that stripped some of the secrecy from executive branch documents and decisions.
Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives.
Ten weeks into the new Congress, it is clear that revelation, not legislation, is going to be its real product.
While President Bush threatens to use his veto pen to stop some bills and Senate Republicans block other measures from even reaching his desk, no force in Washington can halt the Democrats' investigative juggernaut from uncovering the secrets inside this administration.
For the first six years of the Bush administration, these aides were allowed free rein to carry out whatever policy or political assignments they wished -- or supposed that the president wanted done. A Congress under firm Republican control was somnolent when it came to oversight of the executive branch. No Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration.
You have to feel a twinge of sympathy now for the Bush appointees who suddenly find unsympathetic Democratic chairmen such as Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy and Carl Levin investigating their cases. Even if those appointees are scrupulously careful about their actions now, who knows what subpoenaed memos and e-mails in their files will reveal about the past?
They will pay the price for the temporary breakdown in the system of checks and balances that occurred between 2001 and this year -- when the Republican Congress forgot its responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable.
It was a fundamental dereliction of duty by Congress, and it probably did more to encourage bad decisions and harmful actions by executive-branch political appointees than the much-touted lobbying influence. In reality, many Republican members of Congress did not mind what was happening because they were able to get favors done in that permissive climate. Now, the Democratic investigators will publicize instances of influence by members of Congress, and the political fallout will not stop with New Mexico's Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson.
Democrats find it easier to investigate than to legislate. With their major initiatives, from a minimum-wage boost to a shutdown of the Iraq war, stymied by Republican opposition, the Democrats are understandably making "accountability" their new goal -- meaning more and more investigations.
Fulfilling that promise, later in the week the House passed a series of bills that stripped some of the secrecy from executive branch documents and decisions.
Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives.
hairstyles Latest Water For Elephants
pa_arora
07-16 12:39 PM
Guys, we should have more rallies like the SJ one in bay area.. the next target can be San Francisco - Civic Center.
There are many official bulidings like City Hall here and we will definitely get heard again.
I always suggested for this type of gathering on roads so as to get heard. THIS WAS A JOB WELL DONE by people who attended and organized.
Finally to gsc and others, save banners and material from the the SJ rally so that we dont have to start from scrach.
For the people who didnt make it, please attend the next one no matter what.
What do u guys say for Aug 18 ?
There are many official bulidings like City Hall here and we will definitely get heard again.
I always suggested for this type of gathering on roads so as to get heard. THIS WAS A JOB WELL DONE by people who attended and organized.
Finally to gsc and others, save banners and material from the the SJ rally so that we dont have to start from scrach.
For the people who didnt make it, please attend the next one no matter what.
What do u guys say for Aug 18 ?
bnmreddy
02-02 04:48 PM
bump
sameerguptha
08-06 10:37 PM
OPT Start Date: Jan 2009
OPT End Date: May 2011
Comp A (A Consulting Firm)applied for H1-B in April 2009 thru consular Processing and got approved. I worked for Client X in the month of April but lost my job in a week itself.(thus I dont have any pay Stubs from Comp A)Since Comp A was not able to find me a job. I found A full time job in Comp B in June 2009 , I somehow convinced Comp B to hire me as a contractor as I already have my H1-B approved thru Comp A. Thus from july 2010 I started working for Comp A again as my employer and Comp B as its Client. I am planning to go for VISA stamping in Dec 2010. My Question is
1) If they Ask for my Tax Returns and W2 for 2009 what should I answer as I just have my W2 frm Comp B
2) would there be a question of something like why havent I've been working for Comp A Since my H1 approval.
Please advice. I appreciate any kind of answer
OPT End Date: May 2011
Comp A (A Consulting Firm)applied for H1-B in April 2009 thru consular Processing and got approved. I worked for Client X in the month of April but lost my job in a week itself.(thus I dont have any pay Stubs from Comp A)Since Comp A was not able to find me a job. I found A full time job in Comp B in June 2009 , I somehow convinced Comp B to hire me as a contractor as I already have my H1-B approved thru Comp A. Thus from july 2010 I started working for Comp A again as my employer and Comp B as its Client. I am planning to go for VISA stamping in Dec 2010. My Question is
1) If they Ask for my Tax Returns and W2 for 2009 what should I answer as I just have my W2 frm Comp B
2) would there be a question of something like why havent I've been working for Comp A Since my H1 approval.
Please advice. I appreciate any kind of answer
No comments:
Post a Comment