glosrfc
02-28 02:40 PM
...via the Declaration of Independence.
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/2573/liberty2.jpg
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/2573/liberty2.jpg
wallpaper Curly Hairstyles Pictures
GCwaitforever
11-18 02:07 PM
Sorry bro/sis.
Center for Immigration studies is a partisan organization with the ultimate goal of reducing immigration to this country. They spin each and every analysis to the conclusion that current immigration levels are bad for US economy. They are not our friends.
Center for Immigration studies is a partisan organization with the ultimate goal of reducing immigration to this country. They spin each and every analysis to the conclusion that current immigration levels are bad for US economy. They are not our friends.
visacase
07-10 02:41 PM
Hi,
Thanks for my previous response. I am on H1B and between projects. I have an offer to work for a couple of days for a company other than the one holding my H1B. They said they are not gonna report to the IRS as its an hourly job for 2 days and the number of hours are not going to accumulate enough for the IRS. But they need my SSN or tax-payer ID to run their payroll. I am gonna receive my dues as a simple check (like a rebate check with just the total amount showing up & NOT a paystub). Please let me know if I can work for them or not.
Thanks for my previous response. I am on H1B and between projects. I have an offer to work for a couple of days for a company other than the one holding my H1B. They said they are not gonna report to the IRS as its an hourly job for 2 days and the number of hours are not going to accumulate enough for the IRS. But they need my SSN or tax-payer ID to run their payroll. I am gonna receive my dues as a simple check (like a rebate check with just the total amount showing up & NOT a paystub). Please let me know if I can work for them or not.
2011 punk rock hairstyles for women
eager_immi
02-12 10:41 PM
I think u can as long as prior employer does not revoke i140, please consult a good attorney
Current situation :
Labor approved(eb3 with pd of July 03),
I140 in process,
In my seventh year of H1b on a one year extension expiring in August.
Please advise if I can change employers now and still get a new H1 though I am in my seventh year ?
Thanks
Current situation :
Labor approved(eb3 with pd of July 03),
I140 in process,
In my seventh year of H1b on a one year extension expiring in August.
Please advise if I can change employers now and still get a new H1 though I am in my seventh year ?
Thanks
more...
sweet_jungle
04-04 03:17 AM
Does anybody know how to obtain F-1 curricular practical training if the Department does not offer any internship course? If anybody has gone through similar experience, please let me know.
Also, currently, how long it is taking for OPT processing in California?
Also, currently, how long it is taking for OPT processing in California?
indyanguy
09-29 05:25 PM
Can someone comment on how the recent trend has been for a PERM application that was applied under EB2 for a Software Developer position?
My employer is planning to apply one for myself and was wondering if it's a good time to do so?
I've heard that DOL is blatantly denying a large % of applications that are in the audit queue. Is this true? :(
Thanks
My employer is planning to apply one for myself and was wondering if it's a good time to do so?
I've heard that DOL is blatantly denying a large % of applications that are in the audit queue. Is this true? :(
Thanks
more...
Sumedha_inCal
03-10 02:40 PM
Thanks
2010 punk rock hairstyles.
lvaka
05-26 03:59 AM
Hello There,
I just got an RFE on my 485 as following.
Submit a letter of employment attesting to your current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead and cite the date you started working, whether the position is permanent and full-time, a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and the offered salary.
When I invoked my AC21, my new lawyer submitted G-28 but with out any details about my new employment. I hoping that this RFE is related to that. My only concern is that my old job title is programmer analyst and my new job title is Business Solutions Architect with similar (probably a little more) job duties.
Please share your experiences if any one has received similar RFEs.
Thanks
I just got an RFE on my 485 as following.
Submit a letter of employment attesting to your current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead and cite the date you started working, whether the position is permanent and full-time, a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and the offered salary.
When I invoked my AC21, my new lawyer submitted G-28 but with out any details about my new employment. I hoping that this RFE is related to that. My only concern is that my old job title is programmer analyst and my new job title is Business Solutions Architect with similar (probably a little more) job duties.
Please share your experiences if any one has received similar RFEs.
Thanks
more...
martinvisalaw
07-17 11:45 AM
You should move this to the Immigrant Visa forum for more responses.
You should notify CIS that you have changed address and ask that the interview be rescheduled. Hopefully you filed the AR-11, change of address forms, with CIS when you moved
You should notify CIS that you have changed address and ask that the interview be rescheduled. Hopefully you filed the AR-11, change of address forms, with CIS when you moved
hair punk rock girl hairstyles.
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
more...
hopefulgc
07-18 12:55 PM
What is the point of publishing dates for people to see if they have no relevance?
If they are just for CIS employees to see... why publish them publicly and confuse the deuce out of the entire immigrant community?
If they are "a statement of goals", why aren't these goals being adhered to?
Why set and publish goals that are are not followed?
If they are just for CIS employees to see... why publish them publicly and confuse the deuce out of the entire immigrant community?
If they are "a statement of goals", why aren't these goals being adhered to?
Why set and publish goals that are are not followed?
hot punk rock hairstyles.
simbasimba
01-01 01:25 AM
I am nearing the five years on my H1B. My company (A) had it extended with my I-i40 approval. I want to know at this point is it okay to transfer h1B visa to another company (B)? I was told i can only get 9 month extensions with the transfer is that true? Also what if my company (A) cancels my GC process after transferring to company (B), do i have to go through the entire GC process again once I transfer to company (B)? I was told i only have to re apply the I-140 with the priority date given on the previous I-140?
With great appreciation!
Lion King
With great appreciation!
Lion King
more...
house Short Quick Easy Hairstyles
njdude26
07-07 08:19 AM
please...
tattoo quot;punk rock hair stylesquot;,
prakgc
07-24 07:43 PM
Hi,
What is the difference between "reject" and "deny" in USCIS terms? Is it that reject is even before the case is processed and when application is returned back immediately and "deny" is later when the case is looked into and then the aplicant is found ineligible for whatever reasons?
If this is indeed the case how much time does one have after getting an RN to submit additional evidence he/she may have missed initially but before the case is processed?
any ideas from the adjucators manual?
What is the difference between "reject" and "deny" in USCIS terms? Is it that reject is even before the case is processed and when application is returned back immediately and "deny" is later when the case is looked into and then the aplicant is found ineligible for whatever reasons?
If this is indeed the case how much time does one have after getting an RN to submit additional evidence he/she may have missed initially but before the case is processed?
any ideas from the adjucators manual?
more...
pictures Kelly Clarkson long hairstyles
vad
05-17 02:57 PM
Could anyone kindly provide guidance>
My wife, daughter and me have different dates on our green card with mine being the earliest. I am now eligible to file the N400 but my wife has 6 months to go. Does she become eligible only then or does she become eligible as my wife now, once I get approved. My daughter being a minor I guess should be fine on my application
Thank you for any guidance. Tried calling USCIS- cannot get through
My wife, daughter and me have different dates on our green card with mine being the earliest. I am now eligible to file the N400 but my wife has 6 months to go. Does she become eligible only then or does she become eligible as my wife now, once I get approved. My daughter being a minor I guess should be fine on my application
Thank you for any guidance. Tried calling USCIS- cannot get through
dresses hot Good rock hairstyles hair
ramaonline
03-05 06:29 PM
You can get reimbursement for all eligible expenses but you will not get the tax benefit. The taxes due on that amount will be accounted for at the time of filing your return. You can submit claims and get them reimbursed.
more...
makeup punk rock hair styles
coollife
03-03 09:18 PM
I have my H1 filed in 2008. Due to the market situation, I didn't go for H1 stamping and entered US in March 2009 on H4.
I would like to know the steps/process for H4 -> H1 COS.
I know my employer is the best person to answer this. But, the problem is whenever I ask any details, he always tries to abstract the info.
If there are sequence of steps, after which step one is authorized to work? I tried getting the info online, but couldn't . If any of you can give me a pointer or explain the process in detail, it would be very great and helpful.
As per my employer, I can start working in 2 weeks after he initiates the process. I want to make sure that I don't run into any legal issues. Once the employer has initiated the COS process, is there a way one can track the status and also to verify the status after the completion of the process.
Sorry for too many questions. But, please please do help!!!
Thanks a ton in advance!!
I would like to know the steps/process for H4 -> H1 COS.
I know my employer is the best person to answer this. But, the problem is whenever I ask any details, he always tries to abstract the info.
If there are sequence of steps, after which step one is authorized to work? I tried getting the info online, but couldn't . If any of you can give me a pointer or explain the process in detail, it would be very great and helpful.
As per my employer, I can start working in 2 weeks after he initiates the process. I want to make sure that I don't run into any legal issues. Once the employer has initiated the COS process, is there a way one can track the status and also to verify the status after the completion of the process.
Sorry for too many questions. But, please please do help!!!
Thanks a ton in advance!!
girlfriend Long Hairstyles For Men With
snhn
04-15 05:11 PM
Thanks to Googler,
i called TSC and after about 10 mins or wait, i was directed to a very nice lady. Who basically told me that they are processing April 30 application adn since mine is august RD, I have about 4 more months before they look at my file. So to answer, they do go by RD and not ND. She also tole me that my name check has been cleared. Its a matter of time now.
I have not seen any updates on my case, since the LUD after FP. I do have a criminal issue, so I anticipate an interview. However, i have forwared all my court docs to them when i applied for 485. some attorneys tell me that interveiw may not even be needed since they have all the court docs. It was for a DWI 8 years ago.
i called TSC and after about 10 mins or wait, i was directed to a very nice lady. Who basically told me that they are processing April 30 application adn since mine is august RD, I have about 4 more months before they look at my file. So to answer, they do go by RD and not ND. She also tole me that my name check has been cleared. Its a matter of time now.
I have not seen any updates on my case, since the LUD after FP. I do have a criminal issue, so I anticipate an interview. However, i have forwared all my court docs to them when i applied for 485. some attorneys tell me that interveiw may not even be needed since they have all the court docs. It was for a DWI 8 years ago.
hairstyles Punk Rock Hairstyles Pictures
sbind_77
02-14 03:09 PM
Guys
I am filing H4 extension for my wife by myself. I see following 3 quesions in the form 539. Last July I filed 485 for me and my wife. What do I have to say here (yes or No)
you, or any other person included on the application, an applicant for an immigrant visa?
Has an immigrant petition ever been filed for you or for any other person included in this application?
Has a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, ever been filed by you or by any other person included in this application?
Thanks
sbind_77
I am filing H4 extension for my wife by myself. I see following 3 quesions in the form 539. Last July I filed 485 for me and my wife. What do I have to say here (yes or No)
you, or any other person included on the application, an applicant for an immigrant visa?
Has an immigrant petition ever been filed for you or for any other person included in this application?
Has a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, ever been filed by you or by any other person included in this application?
Thanks
sbind_77
axp817
01-04 03:25 PM
Has anyone been in a situation where they joined a new employer after having completed 180 days after 485-filing, and sent in AC-21 documentation through an attorney?
If so, which attorney did you choose for the AC-21 paperwork?
- The old attorney, that represented you and your ex-employer, and filed your labor, 140, 485, EAD, AP
- or the attorney representing the new company
- or a third attorney that you went and found on your own
What do you think is the best way to go, if there is a best way to go?
Your response is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
If so, which attorney did you choose for the AC-21 paperwork?
- The old attorney, that represented you and your ex-employer, and filed your labor, 140, 485, EAD, AP
- or the attorney representing the new company
- or a third attorney that you went and found on your own
What do you think is the best way to go, if there is a best way to go?
Your response is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
ujjvalkoul
07-25 11:51 AM
Does anyone know how slow/fast/better is the Counsular Processing back in India if you ever become eligible to do that?
Is itbetter than applying 485 here and waiting .......ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
Is itbetter than applying 485 here and waiting .......ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
No comments:
Post a Comment