SGP
09-09 04:12 PM
How I wish the date for EB3-I were at 08NOV03. :mad:
wallpaper female maplestory
roseball
01-31 12:46 AM
Hello Seniors,
Can you please let me know what is the process to open an already approved case in USCIS? Is it possible ?
Your help really vital for me.
Thanks a lot
You can file a I-824 application.
Can you please let me know what is the process to open an already approved case in USCIS? Is it possible ?
Your help really vital for me.
Thanks a lot
You can file a I-824 application.
Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
2011 ,maplestory exp hairstyles
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...
raysaikat
05-26 02:13 AM
Hi,
I have recently been laid off from my job, I'm thinking of pursuing a associate degree course from a nearby community college and change to F1 status. I already have a MS degree, Would it be a problem for the change of status?
Thanks,
SK
F-1 is a non-immigrant visa that requires the applicant to prove that s/he has no intention for immigration.
I have recently been laid off from my job, I'm thinking of pursuing a associate degree course from a nearby community college and change to F1 status. I already have a MS degree, Would it be a problem for the change of status?
Thanks,
SK
F-1 is a non-immigrant visa that requires the applicant to prove that s/he has no intention for immigration.
sertasheep
09-23 10:50 PM
Dear IV members,
We're nearing the 100 question mark, with our fourth conference call which will be planned momentarily. We have room for a few more questions for this next conference call. Please continue to send us your questions post haste per the procedure outlined in this (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1267) thread.
Questions received to date have been assigned unique identifiers and such IV members have been notified.
Please await details of the next conference call which will be published during the week of Sept 25, 2006(upcoming week).
Thank you,
We're nearing the 100 question mark, with our fourth conference call which will be planned momentarily. We have room for a few more questions for this next conference call. Please continue to send us your questions post haste per the procedure outlined in this (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1267) thread.
Questions received to date have been assigned unique identifiers and such IV members have been notified.
Please await details of the next conference call which will be published during the week of Sept 25, 2006(upcoming week).
Thank you,
more...
MCQ
05-26 01:37 PM
Chiraj - read the following from the UK Home Office Visa web site
Transit (INF 20) (http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/howtoapply/infs/inf20transit)
seems to say that as long as you have a valid visa (which a greencard is a physical manifestation of an immigrant visa) then you should be ok.
Assuming your son is a US Citizen - he won't need one either.
hope that helps
McQ
Transit (INF 20) (http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/howtoapply/infs/inf20transit)
seems to say that as long as you have a valid visa (which a greencard is a physical manifestation of an immigrant visa) then you should be ok.
Assuming your son is a US Citizen - he won't need one either.
hope that helps
McQ
2010 quot;maplestory exp hairstyles
AC360
10-11 04:18 PM
Dear Friends
I Just Got Fp Notice But My Middle Name Is Not Spelled Correctly
Please Advise.
I Just Got Fp Notice But My Middle Name Is Not Spelled Correctly
Please Advise.
more...
tinkugadu
10-26 09:20 PM
I am a person from SOuth India and i have been in US for the last four years and i came to US on F-1 and then changed to H-1B.
Am i eligible to apply at Delhi consulate for the H-1B stamping. This is my first H-1B stamping.
Am i eligible to apply at Delhi consulate for the H-1B stamping. This is my first H-1B stamping.
hair maple story mulung hair styles
updown
10-16 11:09 PM
I would really appreciate it, if someone could give me some advice.
Here is my situation, in January 2005, I married my girlfriend, who I had dated for little over a year. She is a US born citizen, so we decided to file for my permanent residency upon marriage. Upon receipt of my Green Card in Jan 2008, I filed for naturalization. Our relationship started heading south last year. We tried counseling and it didn't work out. We finally decided to part our ways amicably in Sep, 2009.
I am 34 years old and for reasons unknown to me, I am showing signs of age. I have been also getting some pressure from my family in India to remarry. Though I do not have any plans to marry immediately, I wasn't sure if my getting naturalized in February 2009 would have any impact on marrying someone from India sometime next year?
Please let me know, if there are any cooling off period required?
Thank you.
Here is my situation, in January 2005, I married my girlfriend, who I had dated for little over a year. She is a US born citizen, so we decided to file for my permanent residency upon marriage. Upon receipt of my Green Card in Jan 2008, I filed for naturalization. Our relationship started heading south last year. We tried counseling and it didn't work out. We finally decided to part our ways amicably in Sep, 2009.
I am 34 years old and for reasons unknown to me, I am showing signs of age. I have been also getting some pressure from my family in India to remarry. Though I do not have any plans to marry immediately, I wasn't sure if my getting naturalized in February 2009 would have any impact on marrying someone from India sometime next year?
Please let me know, if there are any cooling off period required?
Thank you.
more...
Macaca
07-29 06:03 PM
Bet on India (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800999.html) The Bush administration presses forward with a nuclear agreement -- and hopes for a strategic partnership. July 29, 2007
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
hot quot;maplestory hair stylesquot;,
gg123
03-13 08:35 PM
Not true. Please check with your lawyer for these type of queries.
more...
house View maplestory guide is
vaayu
05-26 11:33 AM
We always e-file both AP and EAD even when we dont use them. I recenly filed mine 2 weeks ago. Its easy and fast.
tattoo quot;maplestory hair stylesquot;,
acecupid
02-27 10:52 AM
My parents are planning to apply for visitor visa. My aunt (dad's sister) has applied a immigrant petition for him about 4 years back and it is still in process. If my dad applies for a visitor visa which is non-immigrant intent, will he face any issues with issuance of visitor visa ?
Thanks in advance for your comments/advice.
Thanks in advance for your comments/advice.
more...
pictures maplestory- flashblaze#39;s
manand24
10-25 03:28 PM
The case status message for mine and my wife's EAD changed to Card production ordered. It did not change to Approval notice sent. I received the EAD cards within 1 week of the Card Production e-mail. However my lawyer received the Approval notices (wife and mine) first week of October.
dresses tattoo Female Celebrity
losway
12-16 01:36 PM
I have filed a 485 since i married a citizen. I have had my interview with the immigration officer, since my application is 2 years old (do to the excesive moving ive done) she asks me for another medical and a co-sponsor. Medical is no problem, but i cannot produce a co-sponsor. i need a co-sponsor because my wife has 5 kids from a previous marriage, and the household income does not meet that of the guidelines. We do not have any relatives or friends that can help. I have to submit this information by Jan 21 2009.
What are my alternatives?
Thank you
Forgot to mention , we now have a child together, if this makes any difference to the goverment
What are my alternatives?
Thank you
Forgot to mention , we now have a child together, if this makes any difference to the goverment
more...
makeup maplestory hairstyles
upuaut8
10-11 12:24 AM
It will import Adobe Illustrator files. I know that for sure.. that and as mentioned about 3ds files. I really don't know if it will do any others.
girlfriend hair styles for ful figured
sanjeev_2004
08-28 11:45 AM
bumped
hairstyles maplestory exp hairstyles
psychman
02-08 08:49 PM
Hello. I am playing around with making a little app that allows me to draw a polygon shape and then determine how many rectangles can fit inside that shape. The rectangles only have two widths, but can be as long as needed.
It occurred to me that I might somehow be able to have that polygon shape act like a wrap panel and the rectangles inside would self-adjust based on the space provided. Two questions:
1) Is it possible to make a wrap panel with custom borders (not just rectangular)?
2) Is there an equivalent component, to the wrap panel, in Flash? If so, can that component have custom borders?
Thanks very much!
It occurred to me that I might somehow be able to have that polygon shape act like a wrap panel and the rectangles inside would self-adjust based on the space provided. Two questions:
1) Is it possible to make a wrap panel with custom borders (not just rectangular)?
2) Is there an equivalent component, to the wrap panel, in Flash? If so, can that component have custom borders?
Thanks very much!
lucky2010
12-20 05:49 PM
Hello all,
I entered US on a valid h4 visa on june 2007.Filed for a h1b on march 2008 and got and stamped h1 on sep 2008.Cud not find job due to recession.Converted back to h4 on oct 2009.I have following questions
1) Is it possible to convert back to H1 or fresh H1 ?
2) will the time period i spent on h4 will be counted for my h1?
3) When i stamped my h1b earlier(oct 2008) it showed validity till sep 2011.Does that mean I have to apply h4 to h1 before that?
4) In case if i get a RFE on converting from h4 to h1 Can i stay back on my existing h4 visa?
5) I havnt ever worked on my H1 will that affect my conversion from h4 to h1 now?
It will be great if you can answer these questions.
Thanks,
Lucky
I entered US on a valid h4 visa on june 2007.Filed for a h1b on march 2008 and got and stamped h1 on sep 2008.Cud not find job due to recession.Converted back to h4 on oct 2009.I have following questions
1) Is it possible to convert back to H1 or fresh H1 ?
2) will the time period i spent on h4 will be counted for my h1?
3) When i stamped my h1b earlier(oct 2008) it showed validity till sep 2011.Does that mean I have to apply h4 to h1 before that?
4) In case if i get a RFE on converting from h4 to h1 Can i stay back on my existing h4 visa?
5) I havnt ever worked on my H1 will that affect my conversion from h4 to h1 now?
It will be great if you can answer these questions.
Thanks,
Lucky
gcdreamer05
07-15 04:49 PM
I think you can get an infopass appointment and speak to them
No comments:
Post a Comment