serg
07-17 10:33 PM
Infopass?
wallpaper Easter Cupcakes by Objetivo:
thomachan72
04-12 09:21 AM
I had started my anual subscribtion this Friday (4/10/09). How long does it take to be admitted into the donors forum? I have sent the email with details that same day itself. I have not yet recieved a reciept or any RFEs. Hope there is no backlog:D:D:D
Lisap
09-10 12:08 PM
It depends on which state you are in and where your labor was filed. No matter where you send your application there is a possibility that they can transfer it to another center. I sent mine to NSC and it was transfered to Texas.
2011 Easter Cupcakes
immidude
02-28 11:28 AM
i am looking for reasonable attorney for AC21 in BayArea,CA
more...
vaib.shah1
04-23 12:20 AM
Hi All,
Currently on EAD expire on Feb 2011. I 140 approved. 485 filed and pending.
Do I need AP to travel to India?
Thanks
Currently on EAD expire on Feb 2011. I 140 approved. 485 filed and pending.
Do I need AP to travel to India?
Thanks
go_guy123
10-19 10:36 AM
Someone thought this was okay?
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/target-apologizes-for-immigrant-halloween-costume.html)
This also points to the fact that illegal immigrant amnesty is such a charged issue, CIR is extremely difficult to be passed into law (passed by Congress and Senate)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/target-apologizes-for-immigrant-halloween-costume.html)
This also points to the fact that illegal immigrant amnesty is such a charged issue, CIR is extremely difficult to be passed into law (passed by Congress and Senate)
more...
inetuser
01-04 01:59 PM
I applied for 485 under july-07 bulletin and received my AP and EAD though I have not used it yet.
Now I got married and my wife is USC. I would like to apply for 485 based on marriage.
So before applying for marriage based 485, do I need to revoke employment based 485 application or I can have two 485 applications (from two different categories) at the same time? Do I need to revoke AP and EAD also received from employment based?
Also I assume that I need to maintain same A# (got from emploment based application) for marriage based 485 application also.
If I don't need to revoke employment based AP and EAD, then can I use these while my family based 485 application is pending?
I appreciate your help
Now I got married and my wife is USC. I would like to apply for 485 based on marriage.
So before applying for marriage based 485, do I need to revoke employment based 485 application or I can have two 485 applications (from two different categories) at the same time? Do I need to revoke AP and EAD also received from employment based?
Also I assume that I need to maintain same A# (got from emploment based application) for marriage based 485 application also.
If I don't need to revoke employment based AP and EAD, then can I use these while my family based 485 application is pending?
I appreciate your help
2010 decorated easter cupcakes
StillonH1B
08-26 08:32 PM
Hi,
Me and my wife went to India and I came back one week back with my ex employer visa without any problem,I had to show only the I-797 for the current company where I am working. My wife she is still in India coming back to US in September.
I am sending my I-797 original to her in the mail.
My concern is will the immigration officer ask her for my I-797 approval or her I-797 approval ( she is on H4). We don't have an I-797 approval for her as my H1 was applied before we got married.My current H1 is expiring on Jan 19th 2009 so we applied for extension for both of us and got the approvals but its only valid from Jan 19th 2009.
Any replies greatly appreciated.
thanks
Me and my wife went to India and I came back one week back with my ex employer visa without any problem,I had to show only the I-797 for the current company where I am working. My wife she is still in India coming back to US in September.
I am sending my I-797 original to her in the mail.
My concern is will the immigration officer ask her for my I-797 approval or her I-797 approval ( she is on H4). We don't have an I-797 approval for her as my H1 was applied before we got married.My current H1 is expiring on Jan 19th 2009 so we applied for extension for both of us and got the approvals but its only valid from Jan 19th 2009.
Any replies greatly appreciated.
thanks
more...
Zil
12-24 05:25 AM
I am not sure if it was posted before, the immigrant visa fee will go up to $400 from $380 effective January 1, 2008.
Also, Bombay and Madras consulates switched to NVC appointment processing (NVC takes over the scheduling of immigrant visa appointments). Delhi and Calcutta are still standard processing posts, but expect them to be converted in the near future as well.
Chinese, Japanese, Australian and some other (mostly Asian) consulates still follow standard processing, but expect them to be converted in 2008 as well.
They convert consulates without any notice to the public, so always check here before sending in DS-230 and supporting documents:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_3176.html
Also, Bombay and Madras consulates switched to NVC appointment processing (NVC takes over the scheduling of immigrant visa appointments). Delhi and Calcutta are still standard processing posts, but expect them to be converted in the near future as well.
Chinese, Japanese, Australian and some other (mostly Asian) consulates still follow standard processing, but expect them to be converted in 2008 as well.
They convert consulates without any notice to the public, so always check here before sending in DS-230 and supporting documents:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_3176.html
hair Easter cupcakes to share.
Blog Feeds
06-23 12:50 AM
One reads this story in the Dallas Morning News and is prompted to scratch his or her head wondering how these two women - both here since early childhood, both with completely clean criminal backgrounds, both married to US citizens - could be facing deportation. And how is DHS so tone deaf to the facts? The agency has the discretion to not pursue deportation, yet it chooses to do so. The agency also has the authority to allow these women to pursue their green cards, yet chooses not to do so. And they are silent when the women and their...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/ice-push-to-deport-serbian-sisters-highlights-problems-at-the-agency.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/ice-push-to-deport-serbian-sisters-highlights-problems-at-the-agency.html)
more...
Blog Feeds
08-07 09:40 AM
Those of you who have been reading this blog awhile will recall the many posts I've written regarding major problems in the system of detention for immigrants facing potential deportation. Nina Bernstein of the New York Times reports this morning that the White House will enact a series of reforms designed to curb abuses. Some of the promised changes are vague, but an immediate step will be an end to sending families to the Hutto detention facility in Texas, a location that has been the source of many complaints.The Administration is apparently looking at more alternatives to detention for non-violent...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/obama-administration-announces-plans-to-reform-ice-detention-system.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/obama-administration-announces-plans-to-reform-ice-detention-system.html)
hot Easter Cupcakes I made for our
aeroterp
03-09 06:01 PM
Hello,
I am on an O-1 visa married to a G-4 visa holder working for an international organization. My spouse's work told her recently that her spouse and other dependents have to be on a G-4 dependent visa unless they are a US citizen, green card holder or on their own G-4 visa.
1. If I change to G-4 spouse visa, I would have to wait 4-6 weeks before I get an EAD to work. So, I want to know if this is indeed true.
2. Can I continue to work on my O-1 until I get the EAD? Is there any way to expedite the EAD process.
3. Plus, I want to know about the portability of the EAD I can get through a G-4 visa.
4. Also, would this restrict my ability to apply for a green card in the future.
Thanks in advance for any replies.
I am on an O-1 visa married to a G-4 visa holder working for an international organization. My spouse's work told her recently that her spouse and other dependents have to be on a G-4 dependent visa unless they are a US citizen, green card holder or on their own G-4 visa.
1. If I change to G-4 spouse visa, I would have to wait 4-6 weeks before I get an EAD to work. So, I want to know if this is indeed true.
2. Can I continue to work on my O-1 until I get the EAD? Is there any way to expedite the EAD process.
3. Plus, I want to know about the portability of the EAD I can get through a G-4 visa.
4. Also, would this restrict my ability to apply for a green card in the future.
Thanks in advance for any replies.
more...
house Easter Cupcakes I made for our
plakshmi
08-06 10:28 AM
My 485 is pending and and I am still working on h1. I have EAD and advance parole, but do not want to use parole to go to canada (Wanted to save it for India trip). Do I have to take canadian visa to travel to canada for 3 days based on my currnet status. what is the process to take the visa?
tattoo Easter Cupcakes (with a
Macaca
08-15 07:28 PM
Honest and Open Thievery (http://www.reason.com/news/show/121947.html) The limits of Congress's ethics reforms By Jacob Sullum, August 15, 2007
In a letter posted at Congress.org, a constituent praises Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) for his "brilliant intellect." As evidence, Mitchell's admirer cites the congressman's vote for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
The margin by which the act passed�411 to 8 in the House, 83 to 14 in the Senate�takes some of the shine off Mitchell's brilliance. Still, he's probably smart enough to realize what his colleagues evidently understand: Congress's new honesty and openness are not what they're cracked up to be.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires that special appropriations added by individual legislators be listed in an online database at least 48 hours before they come to a vote. Critics such as Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) complained bitterly about a loophole: Congressional leaders can certify that a bill contains no earmarks, and there's no way to challenge that determination.
A deeper problem is that publicity does not deter wasteful, parochial spending that legislators want to publicize. Consider what happened last month when Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) challenged a $100,000 appropriation for a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The earmark's sponsor, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), defended the honor of Leavenworth County, bragging that "we probably have more prisons...than any other county in the United States." She indignantly added that "the local residents are proud of their heritage and rightly so," since Leavenworth has hosted the likes of George "Machine Gun" Kelly and Nazi spy Fritz Duquesne.
The House approved Boyda's earmark by a vote of 317 to 112. Later she told The New York Times, "Democracy is a contact sport, and I'm not going to be shy about asking for money for my community."
So far this year the Democratic House has approved spending bills that include some 6,500 earmarks, not quite keeping pace with the Republicans' record of nearly 16,000 in 2005 but more than twice the whole-year total of a decade ago. Far from shaming legislators into fiscal restraint, the Times reports, "the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members' clout" and "intensified competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving."
Congressional shamelessness likewise may undermine the goals of the new Senate ban on anonymous holds. A hold occurs when a senator refuses to let a bill or nomination proceed by unanimous consent, thereby requiring the measure's supporters to muster 60 votes to allow consideration of the measure.
Holds obviously can be used for purposes that offend supporters of limited government�to extort pork, for example, or obstruct fiscal reform. But any tool that blocks legislation is apt to do more good than harm. Notably, the hold's defenders include fiscal conservatives such as Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as well as big spenders such as Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).
Still, it's hard to find fault with the new requirement that senators publicly identify themselves and state their reasons when they block legislation. We just shouldn't expect too much as a result of this openness. As with earmarks, legislators don't try to hide their actions when they're proud of them, even if they shouldn't be. Interestingly, no one put a secret hold on the secret hold ban.
Transparency may also prove overrated as a way of preventing lobbyists from influencing legislators by arranging campaign contributions. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires public disclosure of "bundles" totaling $15,000 or more in a six-month period. Like the new attention to earmarks, highlighting these donations may simply spur competition, as K Street's denizens strive to keep up with their neighbors.
Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.
In a letter posted at Congress.org, a constituent praises Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) for his "brilliant intellect." As evidence, Mitchell's admirer cites the congressman's vote for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
The margin by which the act passed�411 to 8 in the House, 83 to 14 in the Senate�takes some of the shine off Mitchell's brilliance. Still, he's probably smart enough to realize what his colleagues evidently understand: Congress's new honesty and openness are not what they're cracked up to be.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires that special appropriations added by individual legislators be listed in an online database at least 48 hours before they come to a vote. Critics such as Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) complained bitterly about a loophole: Congressional leaders can certify that a bill contains no earmarks, and there's no way to challenge that determination.
A deeper problem is that publicity does not deter wasteful, parochial spending that legislators want to publicize. Consider what happened last month when Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) challenged a $100,000 appropriation for a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The earmark's sponsor, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), defended the honor of Leavenworth County, bragging that "we probably have more prisons...than any other county in the United States." She indignantly added that "the local residents are proud of their heritage and rightly so," since Leavenworth has hosted the likes of George "Machine Gun" Kelly and Nazi spy Fritz Duquesne.
The House approved Boyda's earmark by a vote of 317 to 112. Later she told The New York Times, "Democracy is a contact sport, and I'm not going to be shy about asking for money for my community."
So far this year the Democratic House has approved spending bills that include some 6,500 earmarks, not quite keeping pace with the Republicans' record of nearly 16,000 in 2005 but more than twice the whole-year total of a decade ago. Far from shaming legislators into fiscal restraint, the Times reports, "the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members' clout" and "intensified competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving."
Congressional shamelessness likewise may undermine the goals of the new Senate ban on anonymous holds. A hold occurs when a senator refuses to let a bill or nomination proceed by unanimous consent, thereby requiring the measure's supporters to muster 60 votes to allow consideration of the measure.
Holds obviously can be used for purposes that offend supporters of limited government�to extort pork, for example, or obstruct fiscal reform. But any tool that blocks legislation is apt to do more good than harm. Notably, the hold's defenders include fiscal conservatives such as Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as well as big spenders such as Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).
Still, it's hard to find fault with the new requirement that senators publicly identify themselves and state their reasons when they block legislation. We just shouldn't expect too much as a result of this openness. As with earmarks, legislators don't try to hide their actions when they're proud of them, even if they shouldn't be. Interestingly, no one put a secret hold on the secret hold ban.
Transparency may also prove overrated as a way of preventing lobbyists from influencing legislators by arranging campaign contributions. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires public disclosure of "bundles" totaling $15,000 or more in a six-month period. Like the new attention to earmarks, highlighting these donations may simply spur competition, as K Street's denizens strive to keep up with their neighbors.
Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.
more...
pictures easter cupcakes Easter
r2d2
02-26 04:08 PM
Hello,
Is there a limit of time a GC holder can remain unemployed if GC obtained through employment and will that have a negative impact on the naturalization process?
Thank you
Is there a limit of time a GC holder can remain unemployed if GC obtained through employment and will that have a negative impact on the naturalization process?
Thank you
dresses Easter Cupcake Recipes
camphor
07-03 02:48 PM
My 485 application for EB2 was filed with USCIS on Sunday, July 1st 2007. My lawfirm is not sure if it will be accepted by USCIS since the filing was done in the weekend. Any comments? There could be lot of us in a similar situation. For those who are in the same boat, I would appreciate any updates you have received from your lawyer.
Thanks,
Thanks,
more...
makeup easter bunny cupcakes recipes.
Macaca
10-30 09:01 PM
To Implement Policy, Bush to Turn to Administrative Orders (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103000558.html) By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman | Washington Post Staff Writers, October 31, 2007
The White House plans to try implementing as much new policy as it can by administrative order while stepping up its confrontational rhetoric with Congress after concluding that President Bush cannot do much business with the Democratic leadership, administration officials said.
According to those officials, Bush and his advisers blame Democrats for the holdup of Judge Michael B. Mukasey's nomination to be attorney general, the failure to pass any of the 12 annual spending bills, and what they see as their refusal to involve the White House in any meaningful negotiations over the stalemated children's health-care legislation.
White House aides say the only way Bush seems to be able to influence the process is by vetoing legislation or by issuing administrative orders, as he has in recent weeks on veterans' health care, air-traffic congestion, protecting endangered fish and immigration. They say they expect Bush to issue more of such orders in the next several months, even as he speaks out on the need to limit spending and resist any tax increases.
The events of recent weeks have "crystallized that the chances of these leaders meeting the administration halfway are becoming increasingly remote," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
Bush himself has been complaining more and more bitterly about congressional Democrats in recent weeks. In a private meeting yesterday with House Republicans in the East Room of the White House, Bush recalled how he had been able to work with Democrats when he was Texas governor and said he had hoped to find the same relationships in Washington.
"He sort of longs for those days, when both sides were genuinely interested in getting along and getting a deal," said Rep. Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, who helped organize yesterday's White House meeting, attended by about 150 Republicans.
The president offered more criticism after the session. "Congress is not getting its work done," Bush said. "We're near the end of the year, and there really isn't much to show for it."
House Democratic leaders fired back at Bush with strong rhetoric of their own. "The president wants the same complacent, complicit Congress that was a co-conspirator in a coverup of what was going on in this country," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).
Both sides have their own political calculations for digging in, with the White House and Republicans seeking to reestablish their credentials as fiscal conservatives and with Democrats concluding that they are on the right side politically on children's health care and other issues.
On some issues, the White House has become increasingly left out of the legislative process. Bush's objection to any tax increases, for instance, has pushed Republicans in the House and the Senate to pursue their own negotiations over an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), concluding that a final bill must include a significant tobacco tax increase to offset its cost.
Even as they offer the president public support, some Republicans on the Hill are hinting that they might break with Bush if the price is right. Asked yesterday whether he could support an SCHIP bill that Bush opposes, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested that is a possibility. "He has his position. House Republicans have theirs," Boehner said.
While Bush castigated Democrats for lack of productivity, congressional Republicans have had their own reasons for moving slowly. On SCHIP, for example, they have said that both sides could reach a deal if the Democratic leadership would slow down and let negotiations proceed.
GOP Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) personally appealed to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) for a delay yesterday. Reid agreed and asked the Senate to put off consideration of the latest version of the bill to let bipartisan talks continue. This time, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) objected to the move.
"That makes an interesting statement about the president's press conference this morning, that we just can't get those Democrats to do anything," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), one of the SCHIP negotiators.
The White House plans to try implementing as much new policy as it can by administrative order while stepping up its confrontational rhetoric with Congress after concluding that President Bush cannot do much business with the Democratic leadership, administration officials said.
According to those officials, Bush and his advisers blame Democrats for the holdup of Judge Michael B. Mukasey's nomination to be attorney general, the failure to pass any of the 12 annual spending bills, and what they see as their refusal to involve the White House in any meaningful negotiations over the stalemated children's health-care legislation.
White House aides say the only way Bush seems to be able to influence the process is by vetoing legislation or by issuing administrative orders, as he has in recent weeks on veterans' health care, air-traffic congestion, protecting endangered fish and immigration. They say they expect Bush to issue more of such orders in the next several months, even as he speaks out on the need to limit spending and resist any tax increases.
The events of recent weeks have "crystallized that the chances of these leaders meeting the administration halfway are becoming increasingly remote," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
Bush himself has been complaining more and more bitterly about congressional Democrats in recent weeks. In a private meeting yesterday with House Republicans in the East Room of the White House, Bush recalled how he had been able to work with Democrats when he was Texas governor and said he had hoped to find the same relationships in Washington.
"He sort of longs for those days, when both sides were genuinely interested in getting along and getting a deal," said Rep. Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, who helped organize yesterday's White House meeting, attended by about 150 Republicans.
The president offered more criticism after the session. "Congress is not getting its work done," Bush said. "We're near the end of the year, and there really isn't much to show for it."
House Democratic leaders fired back at Bush with strong rhetoric of their own. "The president wants the same complacent, complicit Congress that was a co-conspirator in a coverup of what was going on in this country," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).
Both sides have their own political calculations for digging in, with the White House and Republicans seeking to reestablish their credentials as fiscal conservatives and with Democrats concluding that they are on the right side politically on children's health care and other issues.
On some issues, the White House has become increasingly left out of the legislative process. Bush's objection to any tax increases, for instance, has pushed Republicans in the House and the Senate to pursue their own negotiations over an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), concluding that a final bill must include a significant tobacco tax increase to offset its cost.
Even as they offer the president public support, some Republicans on the Hill are hinting that they might break with Bush if the price is right. Asked yesterday whether he could support an SCHIP bill that Bush opposes, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested that is a possibility. "He has his position. House Republicans have theirs," Boehner said.
While Bush castigated Democrats for lack of productivity, congressional Republicans have had their own reasons for moving slowly. On SCHIP, for example, they have said that both sides could reach a deal if the Democratic leadership would slow down and let negotiations proceed.
GOP Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) personally appealed to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) for a delay yesterday. Reid agreed and asked the Senate to put off consideration of the latest version of the bill to let bipartisan talks continue. This time, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) objected to the move.
"That makes an interesting statement about the president's press conference this morning, that we just can't get those Democrats to do anything," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), one of the SCHIP negotiators.
girlfriend Rabbit, easter baskets recipe
BZEANBOWY
01-07 12:48 PM
Good MOrning All I have 2 questions:
1.) My littel sister is living with a Looser for the past 10 teays and he refuse to file for her Residency. So got pregnat last year and now has a baby by him. Is there anything she can do to get her residency in this situation?
2.) I am married to a US citizen. I have a Pending case with USCIS however it has been draging out for too long. I wanted to file for my Residency using my Current marriage. She is a US citizen however dose anyone know if there is a limit or time frame when a US citizen can file for someone else? She was married before and filed for her X-husband residency. Can she file me now without any problem?
1.) My littel sister is living with a Looser for the past 10 teays and he refuse to file for her Residency. So got pregnat last year and now has a baby by him. Is there anything she can do to get her residency in this situation?
2.) I am married to a US citizen. I have a Pending case with USCIS however it has been draging out for too long. I wanted to file for my Residency using my Current marriage. She is a US citizen however dose anyone know if there is a limit or time frame when a US citizen can file for someone else? She was married before and filed for her X-husband residency. Can she file me now without any problem?
hairstyles Vanilla Cupcakes
monu19_75
11-06 06:03 PM
I believe you should just send the H1B approval.
Blog Feeds
01-18 09:00 AM
A fat report and one with some helpful recommendations and statistics. Here are some of the more interesting items I found - - Of the top 150 H-1B employers, 24 were deemed H-1B dependent (a high percentage of workers on the H-1B) and 9 had prior H-1B violations. - Real earnings growth for US workers in occupations with proportionately more H-1B workers - particularly IT - was actually much stronger than the general US worker. - Engineers and IT professionals on H-1Bs were more than twice as likely as their US counterparts to have advanced degrees. - The proportion of...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/01/government-accountability-office-releases-report-on-h-1b-program.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/01/government-accountability-office-releases-report-on-h-1b-program.html)
puskeygadha
12-08 05:36 AM
Lawyer did not give me case number saying that..since it is property of
company I cannot have it...is there a way to steal it
company I cannot have it...is there a way to steal it
No comments:
Post a Comment