jerez_z
11-04 05:59 PM
thanks Mith :)
wallpaper Stockard Channing - quot;The West
Roger Binny
02-20 05:39 PM
Cool, if you dont mind please change the thread title.
glus
04-30 08:19 AM
If you can't show you have had 3 years of experience at the time the labor was filed...you will most likely have hard times getting I140 approved.....the service centers are very thorough regarding work experience.
I am not an attorney.
G
I am not an attorney.
G
2011 stockard channing imdb
ItIsNotFunny
04-27 09:46 AM
Will post something 3.
Great Job !!!
Great Job !!!
more...
kshitijnt
04-26 06:42 PM
Hello Gurus:
I am self filing my EAD/AP: Following documents I have attached to both EAD and AP.
1. Copy of previous EAD/AP (both front and back)
2. Copy of 485 receipt notice
3. Copy of DL/ passport, Visa stamp
4. Copy of I-94 front and back
5. Letter stating why AP is required
6. Letter requesting fee exemption due to filing under new fee structure.
Can I send all applications in one packet? Or should I send them in separate packets?
I am self filing my EAD/AP: Following documents I have attached to both EAD and AP.
1. Copy of previous EAD/AP (both front and back)
2. Copy of 485 receipt notice
3. Copy of DL/ passport, Visa stamp
4. Copy of I-94 front and back
5. Letter stating why AP is required
6. Letter requesting fee exemption due to filing under new fee structure.
Can I send all applications in one packet? Or should I send them in separate packets?
arnab221
11-05 09:57 AM
Folks ,
I was just pondering on why Madame Pelosi has not woken up from her slumber and acted on the letters that she is recieving . I can count 10 letters from my relatively short memory . Wonder when she will ACT and stop recieving and filing letters . JUST 54 days are left in 2007 . :eek:
I was just pondering on why Madame Pelosi has not woken up from her slumber and acted on the letters that she is recieving . I can count 10 letters from my relatively short memory . Wonder when she will ACT and stop recieving and filing letters . JUST 54 days are left in 2007 . :eek:
more...
kirupa
01-20 11:30 AM
I just realised about this competition when I saw this on the main site "FXpression 09 Contest ends January 20th"
It ends at midnight PST, so you have about 15.5 hours from now :)
It ends at midnight PST, so you have about 15.5 hours from now :)
2010 Stockard Channing,
speddi
07-11 05:05 PM
Hi,
Here is my situation.
During the july fiasco last year, I applied for I-485 through Company A(I am still working for it). My I-140 is approved. PD : Aug, 2006, EB-2
At the same time, another company (Company B) applied for I-140 through labor substitution(PD: Nov, 2005, EB-2) and it got approved in May this year. I have a receipt notice of that application but no copy of approval notice. I dont intend to join Company B and dont expect any support from them.
Now that PD is June 1, 2006 for EB-2, is there any way I can use the PD of Company B with out the approval notice? If so, can someone point me to the right direction. Thank you.
Here is my situation.
During the july fiasco last year, I applied for I-485 through Company A(I am still working for it). My I-140 is approved. PD : Aug, 2006, EB-2
At the same time, another company (Company B) applied for I-140 through labor substitution(PD: Nov, 2005, EB-2) and it got approved in May this year. I have a receipt notice of that application but no copy of approval notice. I dont intend to join Company B and dont expect any support from them.
Now that PD is June 1, 2006 for EB-2, is there any way I can use the PD of Company B with out the approval notice? If so, can someone point me to the right direction. Thank you.
more...
mrajatish
05-17 10:38 AM
The answer to using PD from previous 140 is:
"It depends".
"It depends".
hair Stockard Channing and Matt
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
more...
chanduv23
07-15 04:51 PM
I am also in the same boat and lots of people suggesting I take an infopass appointment including a very popular Attorney.
It is wierd thing that so many of us have missed the FP appointments.
It is wierd thing that so many of us have missed the FP appointments.
hot Stockard Channing Pictures
antwoods
07-04 03:28 AM
I'm a little confused about my options in starting my H1 extension process and applying for my wife's H4 application.
Here is my current status :
6 yr H1-B period is ending on Dec 22, 2009. I'm getting married in India in October and will apply for my wife's H4 immediately after. Here are my questions :
1. Will there be any problem with my wife's H4 application if there are just 2 months of validity left on my H1 visa?
2. I could potentially start my H1 extension process now. I'm eligible for a 3 year extension since the Priority date of Jan 3, 2006, on my EB2 application is not current. If I was to start my extension process now, my approval may not happen before October and my lawyer there may be some problems if I travel outside the country on a pending H1 application. Should I apply for my H1 extension now or after I come back to the US in November?
3. If I was to apply for H1 extension in Nov and don't get an approval by the time of my current H1 expiry in December, will I be out of status?
Thanks.
Here is my current status :
6 yr H1-B period is ending on Dec 22, 2009. I'm getting married in India in October and will apply for my wife's H4 immediately after. Here are my questions :
1. Will there be any problem with my wife's H4 application if there are just 2 months of validity left on my H1 visa?
2. I could potentially start my H1 extension process now. I'm eligible for a 3 year extension since the Priority date of Jan 3, 2006, on my EB2 application is not current. If I was to start my extension process now, my approval may not happen before October and my lawyer there may be some problems if I travel outside the country on a pending H1 application. Should I apply for my H1 extension now or after I come back to the US in November?
3. If I was to apply for H1 extension in Nov and don't get an approval by the time of my current H1 expiry in December, will I be out of status?
Thanks.
more...
house Herek / Stockard Channing
Stuettgueardt
11-02 10:38 AM
I thought I'd give it a shot...
http://temp.veritasmusic.nl/button/mactallica.jpg
http://temp.veritasmusic.nl/button/mactallica.jpg
tattoo Vivian (Stockard Channing)
Blog Feeds
06-16 08:40 AM
Welcome news from the US Travel Association: H.R. 2410, the "Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 2010-2011", includes a provision that authorizes the Secretary of State to conduct a two-year pilot program to use secure, remote videoconferencing technology to conduct tourist visa interviews. The travel industry introduced this idea to the government in its 2007 Blueprint to Discover America. "America's travel community is grateful to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership on this critical reform to America's visitor entry process," said Roger Dow, president and CEO of the U.S. Travel Association. "The...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/house-passes-bill-allowing-for-video-conferencing-interviews-at-us-consulates.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/house-passes-bill-allowing-for-video-conferencing-interviews-at-us-consulates.html)
more...
pictures Stockard Channing - West Wing
gc_buddy
03-26 07:22 PM
Hi All,
Can any one give me what is the usual time frame given to respond to an RFE for I 140. I have seen in various threads that it is usually 12 weeks.
On Feb 22nd, I got an RFE on my 140 and the letter reached attorney's office on Mar 6th. On the RFE letter, USCIS has asked to repsond by April 7th. That is hardly 6 weeks and 4 weeks from the data I recd the letter. Is this usual?
Can any one give me what is the usual time frame given to respond to an RFE for I 140. I have seen in various threads that it is usually 12 weeks.
On Feb 22nd, I got an RFE on my 140 and the letter reached attorney's office on Mar 6th. On the RFE letter, USCIS has asked to repsond by April 7th. That is hardly 6 weeks and 4 weeks from the data I recd the letter. Is this usual?
dresses Cast: Stockard Channing
agupta2683
07-08 03:08 PM
I'm a student working on OPT in US. My OPT will expire on Aug 4th and so I will come to India. I'm not sure which of the two options I have to choose while scheduling an interview :
Resident of India/Bhutan
OR
Indian Citizen residing in United States.
Thanks,
Ashish
Resident of India/Bhutan
OR
Indian Citizen residing in United States.
Thanks,
Ashish
more...
makeup Cast: Stockard Channing, Rita
GCisLottery
10-12 04:12 PM
AILA (http://aila.org) has a link to a protected content on their home page about the meeting with State Department.
10/11/06 AILA Liaison/DOS Meeting Minutes
Anybody has access to AILA web site? Any relevant useful information?
AILA, as commercial entity as it is, can provide little more free information to the immigrant community that it "serves."
I'm grateful that individual law firms provide some free information. I like(and thankful to) Mathew Oh's concise, to the point information.
10/11/06 AILA Liaison/DOS Meeting Minutes
Anybody has access to AILA web site? Any relevant useful information?
AILA, as commercial entity as it is, can provide little more free information to the immigrant community that it "serves."
I'm grateful that individual law firms provide some free information. I like(and thankful to) Mathew Oh's concise, to the point information.
girlfriend Stockard Channing
ravi98
09-28 09:42 AM
Ten Economic Facts about Immigration - Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/09_immigration_greenstone_looney.aspx)
A major economic concern is how immigrants influence the wages and employment prospects of U.S. workers. The economic impacts of immigration vary tremendously, depending on whether immigrants are unskilled agricultural laborers, for example, or highly skilled PhD computer scientists. Although their consequences are often conflated, it is constructive to examine the impacts of low-skilled and high-skilled immigrants independently.
Is it possible for the administration to do a study on this matter through a commission - and take its recommendations to formulate the laws accordingly - and immediately? This takes away the usual BS that politicians from both side dish us?
A major economic concern is how immigrants influence the wages and employment prospects of U.S. workers. The economic impacts of immigration vary tremendously, depending on whether immigrants are unskilled agricultural laborers, for example, or highly skilled PhD computer scientists. Although their consequences are often conflated, it is constructive to examine the impacts of low-skilled and high-skilled immigrants independently.
Is it possible for the administration to do a study on this matter through a commission - and take its recommendations to formulate the laws accordingly - and immediately? This takes away the usual BS that politicians from both side dish us?
hairstyles Cast: Stockard Channing, Ned
kamakya
09-28 02:43 PM
Please post here in case anyone sees 485 approval between 09/29/2008 to 09/30/2009
maddipati1
12-09 08:59 PM
/\
GC4US
06-14 06:27 PM
Is it true that if you are on H4 visa and you are using Ead ...and your I-485 is denied...this invalidates your H4 status and you have to leave U.S?
I know that this situation applies only for H1B holder, not H4, the dependent.
If I'm out of H4 status...what are my options? How can I go back to H4 status?
Please advice....this is vey important for me.
Thank you in advance!
I know that this situation applies only for H1B holder, not H4, the dependent.
If I'm out of H4 status...what are my options? How can I go back to H4 status?
Please advice....this is vey important for me.
Thank you in advance!
No comments:
Post a Comment