Ramba
02-27 04:45 PM
Here is the testimony of DHS and commerce secratry before the Judiciary committee on 02/28/07. Not much talk by DHS secretry regarding high skilled immigration. They maily talk about border reinforcement and illegal aliens.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=21753
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=21754
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=21753
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=21754
wallpaper beautiful prom hairstyle 2009-
AnotherDog
04-09 10:10 PM
I am on H1-B Visa and my wife on H4. She filed for GC in Schedule A(I140&I485 filed concurrently) category. Her I140 is not approved yet. We both got our EAD cards but have not worked using our EADs. I do not intend to use my EAD to work. Our question is:
* If her I-140 gets denied will she still have her H4 status as I am still maintaining my H1?
* If not, how can she get back to H4 status? Will she be asked to leave the country immediately?
Need immediate reply.
Thanks in advance
* If her I-140 gets denied will she still have her H4 status as I am still maintaining my H1?
* If not, how can she get back to H4 status? Will she be asked to leave the country immediately?
Need immediate reply.
Thanks in advance
drirshad
07-23 03:55 AM
As long as she was ni status should be fine, not sure if they look into tax returns and u guys didnt show much ....
2011 short prom hairstyle
albnfsjia
10-04 11:37 AM
hi
i want to learn expression blend more!
i did not know some source that will help me in blend
i mean some source that teach by deeply .
i want to learn expression blend more!
i did not know some source that will help me in blend
i mean some source that teach by deeply .
more...
jonty_11
02-14 04:37 PM
As per Immigration-law.com - this might become law by June 2007
solaris27
04-05 04:40 PM
don't belive on online status
ask ur attorney what is RFE .
http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ( link deleted)
Do not post URL of your business to advertise it. - Admin
ask ur attorney what is RFE .
http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ( link deleted)
Do not post URL of your business to advertise it. - Admin
more...
logiclife
04-06 11:13 AM
This issue is an ongoing discussion on another thread.
Please read page 8 of this thread for your answer :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912
Post your new questions there if you need to. There are also some examples of people reporting a successful PD transfer on that thread.
This is redundant and unneccesary so I am closing this thread in order to divert all discussion on one thread only.
Thanks.
Please read page 8 of this thread for your answer :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=912
Post your new questions there if you need to. There are also some examples of people reporting a successful PD transfer on that thread.
This is redundant and unneccesary so I am closing this thread in order to divert all discussion on one thread only.
Thanks.
2010 Black Prom Hairstyles
dce.deepak
07-29 01:03 PM
I think it takes a week or 10 days to get the receipt and it should have your case number
more...
BayBoy
01-17 07:08 PM
Hi ujjvalkoul
Thank you :)
Thank you :)
hair searchquot;top prom hairstyles
bslraju
05-26 03:52 PM
My Lawyer also suggested that we apply Porting PD after the second I 140 gets approved instead of doing it at the time of applying for second I 140.
Please let me know if you get any info. I will do the same
Please let me know if you get any info. I will do the same
more...
waiting4gc02
01-23 03:44 PM
Guys:
just talked to an IO at Nebraska and was told that my file is waiting for an officer to look at.
When I asked how long will it be before they get to it, she says they have like 500 cases each but that I should be hearing something soon?
Any ideas ...how soon ? Has anyone else had a similar conversation and how long did it take before they heard something??
I know there is nothing definate...but just wanting to share and hear back if anyone had similar experience.
Thanks and good luck
just talked to an IO at Nebraska and was told that my file is waiting for an officer to look at.
When I asked how long will it be before they get to it, she says they have like 500 cases each but that I should be hearing something soon?
Any ideas ...how soon ? Has anyone else had a similar conversation and how long did it take before they heard something??
I know there is nothing definate...but just wanting to share and hear back if anyone had similar experience.
Thanks and good luck
hot hairstyles Prom Hair 2009 – Long prom hairstyles 2009 long hair. prom long
sweet_jungle
07-12 12:59 PM
I will be filing my EAD renewal end of this month at NSC.
Is e-filing faster than paper filing? Any suggestions?
Also, my PD will become current from August.
Is e-filing faster than paper filing? Any suggestions?
Also, my PD will become current from August.
more...
house top prom hairstyles for 2009
freddyCR
August 12th, 2005, 03:51 AM
1234http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/freddyphoto/MISC/IMG_6516-1BW.jpg
tattoo tattoo prom hairstyle 2009. curly long prom hairstyles 2009. long hairstyles
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
more...
pictures Celebrity Prom Hairstyles and
senglory
06-23 10:15 AM
How can I get know if my H1B was cancelled or not? Of course without asking about it my last employer.
dresses Prom Hairstyles 2009 -Pictures
Blog Feeds
10-23 09:20 AM
I'm glad to see Immigration Voice weighing in on this one. Under some of the versions of health care reform proposals being considered by Congress, legal immigrants could be excluded for five years before they can access the Medicaid and insurance subsidies despite the fact that they pay taxes, are abiding by all of our laws and are often making critical contributions to the success of this country.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/legal-immigrants-could-be-in-limbo-under-health-care-reform-proposals.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/legal-immigrants-could-be-in-limbo-under-health-care-reform-proposals.html)
more...
makeup prom hairstyles for short hair
senk1s
05-05 07:43 PM
For a moment i thought you were the first case i saw of the multi-year doc referred here
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18905
but your start date is before the application date - so i'd suggest you take an infopass and get their advice on how to get this corrected
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18905
but your start date is before the application date - so i'd suggest you take an infopass and get their advice on how to get this corrected
girlfriend prom hairstyles for long hair
lalithakay
04-29 09:13 AM
Hi,
I'm presently in J-2 visa and my husband is having J-1 visa.
We both are Indian Nationals. My husband applied for J-1 visa when he was in Germany.
It is mentioned in my husband's Visa clearly that "Two Year rule does NOT apply".
3 months later, I applied for J-2 from India with his visa documents.
In my visa also, it is mentioned that "Bearer is NOT subject to section 212(E). Two Year rule does NOT apply".
Now, we both want to apply for H-1B visa seperately. I want to know whether do we need to apply for H-1B waiver?
It is very much confusing since we are Indian nationals, the two year rule applies. But at the same time, as he was in in Germany while applying, it does not apply as mentioned in the visa.
Please clarify. Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Lalitha.
I'm presently in J-2 visa and my husband is having J-1 visa.
We both are Indian Nationals. My husband applied for J-1 visa when he was in Germany.
It is mentioned in my husband's Visa clearly that "Two Year rule does NOT apply".
3 months later, I applied for J-2 from India with his visa documents.
In my visa also, it is mentioned that "Bearer is NOT subject to section 212(E). Two Year rule does NOT apply".
Now, we both want to apply for H-1B visa seperately. I want to know whether do we need to apply for H-1B waiver?
It is very much confusing since we are Indian nationals, the two year rule applies. But at the same time, as he was in in Germany while applying, it does not apply as mentioned in the visa.
Please clarify. Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Lalitha.
hairstyles The right prom hairstyles are
h1-b forever
09-14 08:53 AM
includes all
whoever
03-24 12:41 AM
how did you get h1 without quota?
Blog Feeds
09-10 12:50 PM
A voice of reason in the GOP on immigration departs. He will be missed in this process. In the mean time, Florida's new Senator, George LeMieux, is certainly not sounding like a fighter for immigration reform. According to the Orlando Sentinel: LeMieux appears likely to steer clear of Martinez's controversial attempts to overhaul immigration law, which would include a path to citizenship for the undocumented. 'We need tosecure our borders,' LeMieux said. 'After we do that, we can figure what happens to people already here.'
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/martinez-bids-farewell-and-urges-senate-to-pass-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/martinez-bids-farewell-and-urges-senate-to-pass-immigration-reform.html)
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий