raysaikat
07-20 11:03 AM
I finally got my BC from India, now my lawyer tells me that it should have Mothers maiden name, Is that right? I cannot find any info which says that.
Birth certificates formats are entirely local. In India each state; maybe even each district has its own format. Your lawyer may have seen some that has this information, or s/he simply does not believe you that what you got is the genuine one. In any case, USCIS does not (and cannot) require any specific format.
Birth certificates formats are entirely local. In India each state; maybe even each district has its own format. Your lawyer may have seen some that has this information, or s/he simply does not believe you that what you got is the genuine one. In any case, USCIS does not (and cannot) require any specific format.
wallpaper HP Compaq 420 Notebook Laptop
anu_sek
10-13 10:20 PM
Hi, my husband was killed in a road accident. He was on J1 and had very good publications and this happened when we were just wanting to apply for our green card, as he had very good credentials we would have got it without any problems. We had dreams of sending our daughter to best school for her college. Now with life turning upside down, I am enrolled in grad school to work on my phd and will take a while, but with this tragedy being recent dont really know how long its going to take to complete it and how future would be.
I want to know if there is any possibility that I can apply for immigrant visa on humanitarian grounds as it would be very difficult for me to live in India my home country due to social reasons as a widow with a little daughter.
I want to know if there is any possibility that I can apply for immigrant visa on humanitarian grounds as it would be very difficult for me to live in India my home country due to social reasons as a widow with a little daughter.
ajaysri
03-01 12:42 PM
I have changed to a new employer and have mailed AC21 documentation to the nebraska service center at the following address using FEDEX.
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
Lincoln, NE 68508-1225
It is 2 weeks now that the mail has been delivered. So far I have not seen any soft LUD's on either my pending I-485 or approved I-140 cases.
- Would the LUD's be seen at all on these? How many days after sending the docs would you see the LUD typically?
- Is there any way we can call and confirm that the new employer details are applied on my I-485 case?
Thanks
Sri
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
Lincoln, NE 68508-1225
It is 2 weeks now that the mail has been delivered. So far I have not seen any soft LUD's on either my pending I-485 or approved I-140 cases.
- Would the LUD's be seen at all on these? How many days after sending the docs would you see the LUD typically?
- Is there any way we can call and confirm that the new employer details are applied on my I-485 case?
Thanks
Sri
2011 compaq 420 notebook. hp compaq
Jaime
02-22 03:04 PM
It's true that Obama is focusing on the economy now, but if we do a massive flower campaign now it will get us press and attention and "loosen" things up, then we can go for a second even bigger flower campaign in the spring and in the summer when the previous flower campaign will still be alive in the public's memory. That way people will say "wait, legals? that's different than illegals, and it sounds serious"
We need to get ourselves noticed! The illegals had Obama on the Hispanic radio show with "Piolin Sotelo" last week. Why aren't we doing anything? We are not cowards, are we? The illegals can but we legals can't?
Let's not stop with the flowers until we're heard. We send this week, then in a couple of months and so forth until they fix the injustice we're in
I'll send the first bouquet of flowers to USCIS or DOL or the WHite House if I can get 10 volunteers to send with me. Who's with me? Let's send them this week. Who's in?
We need to get ourselves noticed! The illegals had Obama on the Hispanic radio show with "Piolin Sotelo" last week. Why aren't we doing anything? We are not cowards, are we? The illegals can but we legals can't?
Let's not stop with the flowers until we're heard. We send this week, then in a couple of months and so forth until they fix the injustice we're in
I'll send the first bouquet of flowers to USCIS or DOL or the WHite House if I can get 10 volunteers to send with me. Who's with me? Let's send them this week. Who's in?
more...
uvreddi
12-04 10:03 AM
Hello Everyone,
Iam an H4 transferred to H1B. I am on H1B since one year. My pay is less than the one mentioned in LCA, but more than the prevailing wages. My job profile also includes some part of salary as comission, which I would get at the end of the year. This is apart from the salary Iam receiving right now (greater than the prevailing wage and less than LCA). Do I face any problem if I happen to go for H1B visa stamp. Could you also suggest me how to defend myself if I am asked the difference in the salary by visa officer. Thanking you all in advance.
Iam an H4 transferred to H1B. I am on H1B since one year. My pay is less than the one mentioned in LCA, but more than the prevailing wages. My job profile also includes some part of salary as comission, which I would get at the end of the year. This is apart from the salary Iam receiving right now (greater than the prevailing wage and less than LCA). Do I face any problem if I happen to go for H1B visa stamp. Could you also suggest me how to defend myself if I am asked the difference in the salary by visa officer. Thanking you all in advance.
mayhemt
09-21 10:28 AM
Here's my case
(EB3-I I485 filed & pending, got married after July 2007 episode and missed filing I485 for my wife.)
So, cannot use EAD during these transitions and continuing H1 filings & extensions...
My current H1b is expiring on Sep 30 2010, I 94 expires on Oct 09 2010 (I know the officer at DFW POE was kind enough to give expiry 10 days beyond petition exp date).
My current company filed for normal extension during 3rd week of Sep 2010.
Now I got job offer from another employer, who wants me to join from 11 Oct 2010 or I can ask them to advance joining date to 06 Oct 2010 (to rule out the possibility of being out of status). They are ready to do H1B premium. (They claim their track record is good, & they get very minimal denials)
Did anyone face this situation?
Also, once the new employer's H1B is filed, does it come with I-94 cards in the petition notice? (If not, I would have to go out & get stamped, don't I?)
(EB3-I I485 filed & pending, got married after July 2007 episode and missed filing I485 for my wife.)
So, cannot use EAD during these transitions and continuing H1 filings & extensions...
My current H1b is expiring on Sep 30 2010, I 94 expires on Oct 09 2010 (I know the officer at DFW POE was kind enough to give expiry 10 days beyond petition exp date).
My current company filed for normal extension during 3rd week of Sep 2010.
Now I got job offer from another employer, who wants me to join from 11 Oct 2010 or I can ask them to advance joining date to 06 Oct 2010 (to rule out the possibility of being out of status). They are ready to do H1B premium. (They claim their track record is good, & they get very minimal denials)
Did anyone face this situation?
Also, once the new employer's H1B is filed, does it come with I-94 cards in the petition notice? (If not, I would have to go out & get stamped, don't I?)
more...
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
2010 compaq 420 laptop. hot
Blog Feeds
08-30 09:40 PM
A Democratic Senator working on immigration reform says a bill is not happening this year. Is this news?
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/from-the-department-of-no-duh.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/from-the-department-of-no-duh.html)
more...
AstroZombie916
09-13 03:35 PM
it takes 5-10 seconds per frame at first.
hair wallpaper HP Compaq 420 Laptop
mangal
01-08 09:28 AM
Can I File My I-140 While I M Waiting For My H-1b Renewal(3year).my Old H-1b Is Already Expired.
more...
njdude26
08-09 04:28 PM
Im currently in my 8th year H1 extension. I will file for my 9th year extension ( 1yr extension) and get it stamped in December. Then I will be outside the country for a year and will come back in next december'07. At that time can i file an extension and get a 3 year extension since i have been out of the country for a year ? If my labor gets approved and 140 gets approved then i know i will be able to do it but if the labor is still stuck....
hot Hp Compaq 420 Laptop Battery,
gmail
07-21 05:35 AM
Hi,
In the process of renewing EAD, I realized that I got 2 EAD cards. One is through my own i-485. The second one was piggy-back from my spouse's i-485. To renew it, should I renew both?
The reason of two i-485 is a long story. Mine is EB-2, thus shorter retrogression. But back then, my job was shaky. At a matter of fact, I left the company before 180 days after i-485. I got I-140 later from the employer though.
So i applied another i-485 with my spouse's EB-3 i-485, thus another EAD.
I don't want to abandon my I-485 or my spouse's I-485. Should I apply to renew both EADs?
Best regards,
In the process of renewing EAD, I realized that I got 2 EAD cards. One is through my own i-485. The second one was piggy-back from my spouse's i-485. To renew it, should I renew both?
The reason of two i-485 is a long story. Mine is EB-2, thus shorter retrogression. But back then, my job was shaky. At a matter of fact, I left the company before 180 days after i-485. I got I-140 later from the employer though.
So i applied another i-485 with my spouse's EB-3 i-485, thus another EAD.
I don't want to abandon my I-485 or my spouse's I-485. Should I apply to renew both EADs?
Best regards,
more...
house Compaq 420 - Unused - Brand
keerthisagar
09-21 10:36 AM
Bridge Collapses at Commonwealth Games (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/sports/22iht-GAMES.html?_r=1&hp)
tattoo HP COMPAQ CQ56-219WM NOTEBOOK
Dhundhun
12-10 01:22 AM
On Nov 8th, Senator Lieberman and 18 of his Senate colleagues, wrote to Michael Chertoff (Homeland Security Secretary) to extend 12 months opt to 29 months exercising his authority.
On Nov 11th, NAFSA President Johnson also wrote to Secretary Chertoff to make this change, endorsing above request.
But so for nothing further has come out.
(BTW, how do you start a new thread?).
On Nov 11th, NAFSA President Johnson also wrote to Secretary Chertoff to make this change, endorsing above request.
But so for nothing further has come out.
(BTW, how do you start a new thread?).
more...
pictures 2010 HP Compaq Presario G60-235DX CQ60-420 Laptop Keyboard | eBay hp compaq
abdkllb
05-21 07:57 AM
Hi,
I am applying for renewal of EAD .I have two question regarding that.
My husband is primary applicant.
1.Should I apply with his ID or I can create my seperate ID and apply through that.
2.For c9 Eligibility status which option should I select?.
a.family based.
b.Employment based .
Thanks
I am applying for renewal of EAD .I have two question regarding that.
My husband is primary applicant.
1.Should I apply with his ID or I can create my seperate ID and apply through that.
2.For c9 Eligibility status which option should I select?.
a.family based.
b.Employment based .
Thanks
dresses compaq 420 laptop.
EkAurAaya
12-13 01:41 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10946
Check the above link same issue has been discussed... but in short don't stress over it :)
Check the above link same issue has been discussed... but in short don't stress over it :)
more...
makeup HP Compaq Presario 12XL420
aerady
10-23 04:20 PM
I am on US since Apr 2003 on L1B and it expires on Jan 25 2008
Last week my employer applied for L1A and it got approved. Approval notice says the new L1A visa is valid from Jan 26 2008 to Jan 26 2010(2 years)
I am planning to travel to india on vacation at dec 2007 and come back to US on Jan 1 2008
1) If I travel back to US on Jan 1 2008 without stamping L1A on passport, will the port of entry officer give I94 till Jan 26 2010 if I show the approved L1A I797 petition?
2) If I stamp L1A from India, when stamping the new L1A, I assume they will cancel my current L1B and stamp L1A which is valid only from Jan 26 2008. Am I correct? Then I will not be able to travel on Jan 1st 2008 since I dont have a valid visa stamped on passport at that time!
What to do ....Please help!
Last week my employer applied for L1A and it got approved. Approval notice says the new L1A visa is valid from Jan 26 2008 to Jan 26 2010(2 years)
I am planning to travel to india on vacation at dec 2007 and come back to US on Jan 1 2008
1) If I travel back to US on Jan 1 2008 without stamping L1A on passport, will the port of entry officer give I94 till Jan 26 2010 if I show the approved L1A I797 petition?
2) If I stamp L1A from India, when stamping the new L1A, I assume they will cancel my current L1B and stamp L1A which is valid only from Jan 26 2008. Am I correct? Then I will not be able to travel on Jan 1st 2008 since I dont have a valid visa stamped on passport at that time!
What to do ....Please help!
girlfriend HP Compaq 420 Laptop
glus
02-25 01:26 PM
NO, a 3-year extension is possible after I-140 is approved. In your case you will get a one-year extension based on PERM which is pending for 1 year, or is approved by the time you need to file for H-1B extension.
hairstyles hp compaq 420 laptop.
insbaby
06-22 01:55 PM
Hi,
My passport expires in Jan 2010.
Is there a time frame by which I need to renew passport? Can I go sometime this month or should it be within 6 months of expiration?
Thanks in advance.
Washington DC - Indian Embassy - 6 months before.
My passport expires in Jan 2010.
Is there a time frame by which I need to renew passport? Can I go sometime this month or should it be within 6 months of expiration?
Thanks in advance.
Washington DC - Indian Embassy - 6 months before.
gk_2000
05-01 02:46 AM
Thank you supes.. may Batman, Spiderman, lizardman, ordinary man, every man follow your suit and keep immigration in front page :-)
Blog Feeds
05-19 08:10 AM
I started to notice this back in 2006 when the immigration debate was heating up in Washington. I was getting those annoying email forwards and this time they were of the Lou Dobbsian anti-immigrant variety. The surprising thing to me was that most of them were coming from older family members or acquaintances in the senior citizen set. And since then I've noticed that when I do presentations for civic groups or have observed focus groups on immigration, the older attendees seem to be more hostile. Certainly when one looks at the typical anti-immigrant activist showing up at a FAIR...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/the-immigration-debate-gender-gap.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/the-immigration-debate-gender-gap.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment