skp71
07-18 06:45 PM
My PD is 09/2002. I have already renewed EAD for 3 times. Still I have been using my H1, not on EAD. Due to lot of expenses, I don't want to renew EAD again. Current EAD is expiring in September. Is that okay? or better renew? Thanks.
wallpaper ack, long in the front.
royus77
09-29 02:50 AM
Hi ,
My friend needs to attend a family urgency and planning to travel immediately . His AP is expiring on 3 Sep 09( 4 days ) . He is working on EAD and is in Adjustment status he is yet to start the AP renewal process ...any advice appreciated...
Thanks
My friend needs to attend a family urgency and planning to travel immediately . His AP is expiring on 3 Sep 09( 4 days ) . He is working on EAD and is in Adjustment status he is yet to start the AP renewal process ...any advice appreciated...
Thanks
ruchigup
08-08 07:50 PM
Gurus,
I am moving 60 miles from where I live now. I am planning to do following two things.
1. File a Form AR-11
2. Call this number (800) 375-5283 for pending I-485 and EAD renewal applications for self and spouse
Do I need to update the address on approved AP/I-140/EAD or any other approved applications as well.
Am I missing something :confused:
Please advice....Thanks :)
I am moving 60 miles from where I live now. I am planning to do following two things.
1. File a Form AR-11
2. Call this number (800) 375-5283 for pending I-485 and EAD renewal applications for self and spouse
Do I need to update the address on approved AP/I-140/EAD or any other approved applications as well.
Am I missing something :confused:
Please advice....Thanks :)
2011 short hair in ack and longer
gccovet
07-28 08:19 AM
Hi,
My Case: EB3-I, PD=5/2004, I-140 Approved, July 07 filer.
Being infected by COTLS, I checked my status @USCIS.gov (as EAD filed, end of May (Paper based)@TSC- NO movement as of today.) I got a soft LUD on 7/13 on my already approved I-140 (approved mid of 2006).
I had earlier read a thread where people were talking about LUD on their cases dated 7/13/08. I was surprised as I am EB3-I.
Anybody has insight on this case? Any comments?
I will go take a chill pill as of now (to try to get rid of COLTS).
You all have a great Monday.
GCCovet
My Case: EB3-I, PD=5/2004, I-140 Approved, July 07 filer.
Being infected by COTLS, I checked my status @USCIS.gov (as EAD filed, end of May (Paper based)@TSC- NO movement as of today.) I got a soft LUD on 7/13 on my already approved I-140 (approved mid of 2006).
I had earlier read a thread where people were talking about LUD on their cases dated 7/13/08. I was surprised as I am EB3-I.
Anybody has insight on this case? Any comments?
I will go take a chill pill as of now (to try to get rid of COLTS).
You all have a great Monday.
GCCovet
more...
joshraj
04-08 04:44 PM
Hi Friends,
Starting this thread for NSC 140 applicants to track LUDs and Approvals.
The whole purpose of this thread is to get the indication of where NSC is with the appoval process for 140.
I hope every one who is connected to NSC for I140 application will update this thread.
Cheers!
JoshRaj
Starting this thread for NSC 140 applicants to track LUDs and Approvals.
The whole purpose of this thread is to get the indication of where NSC is with the appoval process for 140.
I hope every one who is connected to NSC for I140 application will update this thread.
Cheers!
JoshRaj
Blog Feeds
01-24 07:50 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)
more...
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
2010 Short Hair In Back Long
today24
11-18 10:50 AM
Any suggestions please!
more...
Didiusthegreat
09-21 09:41 AM
Hi, I've been reading your post, but I do not understand. What do you exactly want to know?
How you should twist an object??
Please tell me
How you should twist an object??
Please tell me
hair My hair is longer in the front
Jaime
08-31 11:06 AM
We should think of starting this thread to organize bus rides from Texas. If we use U.S. Coachways, which is in most major cities, we could potentially have buses leave from the major metros (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin) or two or more buses leaving Houston and San Antonio in the south and picking up more people as they make their way north to Dallas and Austin. Beyond Texas, the buses could also pick people up in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc, or other states depending on the routes. Also, a great and reliable local Dallas bus company is "Buses by Bill"
Any thoughts guys?
http://www.uscoachways.com/about.php
Any thoughts guys?
http://www.uscoachways.com/about.php
more...
theOne
01-29 08:26 PM
I have a gc. Can I sponsor my parents for GC ?
Thanks,
theOne
Thanks,
theOne
hot styled long at the front
foobar2001
01-27 12:09 AM
yes, you can add her anytime before the approval of your I485 (3rd stage of the GC process). You havent mentioned EB1/2/3 but if its EB2 or EB3, stage 3 is several years away for you, and you can always add her before you apply for the final stage. Good luck!
more...
house Katie Holmes Short Hairstyle
nyckings
10-15 12:39 PM
When preparing docs to provide response for 221g form, I have filled DS-156 form at http://https://evisaforms.state.gov/ds156.asp. On click of Continue, it generated a PDF with randon bar code. Printed that online. And sent to docs to VFS Hyderabad officer.
I was told that bar code is wrong, I should fill up another DS-156 form. Are they looking for DS-156 submitted at the time of interview that has HDFC receipt number as bar code.
Please let me know if you have faced this problem earlier.
They have retained my wife passport asked to produce to copy of current visa of husband. Can I reply to this online.
Please reply ASAP
I was told that bar code is wrong, I should fill up another DS-156 form. Are they looking for DS-156 submitted at the time of interview that has HDFC receipt number as bar code.
Please let me know if you have faced this problem earlier.
They have retained my wife passport asked to produce to copy of current visa of husband. Can I reply to this online.
Please reply ASAP
tattoo medium hairstyles, Layerd
Atlee
06-01 02:26 AM
I am wondering what happens if I buy some real estate property ( a condo unit) while I am on H1B, and if i moved out of country, (H1B - 6Yrs completed) do i need to sell the property (condo) before i leave country? Can i rent this unit while i am away from country? On a new H1B can i come and stay in that home? Anybody experienced this case before? Please give me details as much as possible. Thanks.
I am wondering what happens if I buy some real estate property ( a condo unit) while I am on H1B, and if i moved out of country, (H1B - 6Yrs completed) do i need to sell the property (condo) before i leave country? Can i rent this unit while i am away from country? On a new H1B can i come and stay in that home? Anybody experienced this case before? Please give me details as much as possible. Thanks.
I am wondering what happens if I buy some real estate property ( a condo unit) while I am on H1B, and if i moved out of country, (H1B - 6Yrs completed) do i need to sell the property (condo) before i leave country? Can i rent this unit while i am away from country? On a new H1B can i come and stay in that home? Anybody experienced this case before? Please give me details as much as possible. Thanks.
more...
pictures The longer hair at the front
tinku01
07-22 01:01 PM
How to get interview date schedule at new delhi and mumbai consulate. They havn't issued anything yet although Chennai issued their calendar last week
dresses short hair in ack and longer
207013133
05-26 12:38 PM
My I-94 and L1A visa expired on October of 2008. I received my I-797A notice of action and my extended I-94, which is valid until June of 2010. My HR manager said I should be ok as long as I don't leave the USA.
I need to travel outside of the United States for one week. Will I be able to re-enter the USA if I show the approved Petition I-129 with the new I-94 and the expired visa?
Or will I need to go to the consulate to get a new visa stamp extended to June 2010 to re-enter the USA?
I will appreciate your help.
I need to travel outside of the United States for one week. Will I be able to re-enter the USA if I show the approved Petition I-129 with the new I-94 and the expired visa?
Or will I need to go to the consulate to get a new visa stamp extended to June 2010 to re-enter the USA?
I will appreciate your help.
more...
makeup blonde very short boy cut hair
AstroZombie916
09-13 03:30 PM
Ok, heres the problem. When i got to export my animation, it always slows down on the eighth frame exactly when its doing the ravid thing. I mean it will take 5-10 per frame until it gets to the eighth frame, then it takes about 20 minutes a frame...why? Is there anything im doing wrong???
girlfriend Short Hair In Back Long Hair
Saikrishna
11-27 08:09 AM
Please provide me ASAP.
Thanks.
Thanks.
hairstyles ack and longer at
dealsnet
02-11 06:48 PM
GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND.
DON'T START A THREAD FOR THIS.
CHECK WIKIPEDIA.can some kind souls please explain to me what is the meaning of 'retrogression'?
thank you
:confused:
DON'T START A THREAD FOR THIS.
CHECK WIKIPEDIA.can some kind souls please explain to me what is the meaning of 'retrogression'?
thank you
:confused:
joeglen3
08-08 11:10 PM
My I-140 was approved April 30,2007. The appoval letter indicated that not yet elligible for change of status. The I-485 was returned together with the checks we paid. Please clarify and what can I do next other than waiting?
johnggberg
07-19 07:23 PM
may be eb2 in 2002 and eb3 somewhere 2001
No comments:
Post a Comment