Donaldam
11-18 07:09 AM
So we got an RFE. Bummer. Some of the things were really simple things, like I missed signing in one spot... oops. Had to get a copy of my dad's birth certificate because he's supporting my husband with his income. But two of the RFEs were for taxes which I am 99% sure that I sent in for 2007 for both my father and I, so I don't know why we got an RFE for that (I just ordered the tax transcripts for all 3 years for the both of us, just to make it easier). Anyway, they also want my dad's paystubs for the last 6 months. Cool. So I went through my dads paystubs, and two of the paystubs are missing from the last 6 months - one from May and one from March
wallpaper Anime Sexy Girls Wallpaper 001
myimmiv
06-07 09:24 PM
Waiting for some response...
vik_tx
11-29 04:44 PM
Congratulations!!! can u share your PD, category and RD?
pd - 4/2003
eb2
rd - 6/2007
pd - 4/2003
eb2
rd - 6/2007
2011 cute anime wallpapers for
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
more...
macrosky
06-19 11:47 PM
Can I use salary.com instead of flcdatacenter to determine the prevailing wage? Will immigration officer accept this source? Thanks
stefanv
08-03 07:13 AM
Thankx mate :D
more...
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
2010 For now this anime wallpaper
Blog Feeds
01-12 07:40 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Okay, so Lou Dobbs appears on Bill O'Reilly's show last night. And Dobbs appears the more rational one. It is amazing what a desire to get into politics will do to one's "uncompromising" standards. Watch it here:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5822981281410072246?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/lou-dobbs-and-bill-orielly-surreality.html)
Okay, so Lou Dobbs appears on Bill O'Reilly's show last night. And Dobbs appears the more rational one. It is amazing what a desire to get into politics will do to one's "uncompromising" standards. Watch it here:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5822981281410072246?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/lou-dobbs-and-bill-orielly-surreality.html)
more...
Macaca
07-24 08:04 AM
Reform, the FDR way (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shlaes23jul23,1,2603353.story) Democrats are right to revere Roosevelt, but even he knew when to reform his own reforms. By Amity Shlaes, AMITY SHLAES is the author of "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," a syndicated columnist for Bloomberg News and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. July 23, 2007
WHERE'S the fun? That's the feeling you get watching the Democrats in Washington this summer. Gone is the happy plan for a frenzy of lawmaking, the "Hundred Hours" of action Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised when the Democrats took the House. The speaker's artful allusion to Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Hundred Days" quickly became an ironic echo. During that first euphoric legislative period, Roosevelt managed to rescue the banking system from disaster, assist bankrupted farmers, rewrite the economics of agriculture and the rules for flailing businesses, bring back beer � you name it. Contemporary leaders can't even act on pressing issues such as agriculture and immigration, not to mention Social Security.
Why can't politicians be Roosevelts today? For an answer, let's look to the middle of 1935, about two years into FDR's New Deal and the equivalent of about now in the election cycle. The federal government was still smaller than the nation's state and local governments combined. Two out of 10 men were unemployed. FDR took the economic emergency as a powerful mandate for further lawmaking. He jumped into the project with all the glee of a boy leaping into a sandbox. The papers reported that he was going to "blast out of committee" yet another round of bills, and blast he did � that year the country's premier labor law, the Wagner Act, was passed, as was Social Security.
At about the same time, Roosevelt slapped together the Rural Electrification Administration, which came on top of the New Deal's large farm subsidies. For construction workers, artists and writers, he created � also in mid-1935 � the Works Progress Administration, which hired the unemployed, including artists, craftsmen and journalists. To appreciate the size of that gift, imagine a contemporary politician responding to a market crash by putting ex-employees of Google on the federal payroll. The president also built on to an already large structure, the Public Works Administration, which funded town halls, grammar schools and swimming pools in 3,000 counties. The money? Roosevelt passed a tax increase that opponents called the "soak the rich" act. It contained an estate tax rate hike that would make John Edwards drool. By 1936, the government took up more than 9% of gross domestic product. For the first peacetime year in U.S. history, Washington had edged past the state and local governments in size to become a larger part of the national economy. (Just a few years earlier, state and local governments had been twice as large as Washington.) FDR had reversed the old crucial ratio of federalism, and Washington has dominated the country ever since.
Those early commitments set a trend of promises. Some of them became what we now call entitlements. Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s layered on governmental commitments with the Great Society. President Bush has heaped on more, with a new entitlement: prescription drugs for seniors. Only a narrow part of the federal budget remains for discretionary spending � the part left over for new ideas. And setting aside the question of whether an individual program is good, bad or simply in need of an overhaul, we've found as a country that old commitments are simply too hard to undo.
This is partly because of the way the political game works. When you seek to take away a benefit from one targeted recipient, he will fight like crazy to keep it � think of the ferocious battles the farm lobby wages over even tiny reductions in agricultural subsidies. Those who gain from reducing the size of the handout, however, are members of the lobbyless general public who will receive only an incremental advantage, maybe the equivalent of a penny or two apiece. So the rest of us don't have the incentive or ability to apply countervailing pressure. Yet that's exactly what we need today: the energy and exhilaration of FDR in his first term.
Today's timidity would have disturbed FDR, who had no trouble knocking down the sandcastles he had made. Early in the 1930s, he created 4 million jobs with the Civilian Works Administration, then uncreated them when he decided the CWA was too close to the English dole. When he tired of Harold Ickes' Public Works Administration, he scaled it back, and finally abolished it in 1941. As for Ickes' Department of the Interior, FDR decided that it was time to revise it into "a real Conservation Department" � a change many would welcome today.
A few leaders since FDR have persuaded Congress to help them bring about changes on this scale � Ronald Reagan's bipartisan tax reform of 1986 and Bill Clinton's welfare reform a decade later come to mind. These presidents were truer to FDR's spirit than the hesitating Congress of today. Clearing some blank space for new institutions is possible. But lawmakers won't do it if they honor Rooseveltian edifices more than Roosevelt did himself.
WHERE'S the fun? That's the feeling you get watching the Democrats in Washington this summer. Gone is the happy plan for a frenzy of lawmaking, the "Hundred Hours" of action Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised when the Democrats took the House. The speaker's artful allusion to Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Hundred Days" quickly became an ironic echo. During that first euphoric legislative period, Roosevelt managed to rescue the banking system from disaster, assist bankrupted farmers, rewrite the economics of agriculture and the rules for flailing businesses, bring back beer � you name it. Contemporary leaders can't even act on pressing issues such as agriculture and immigration, not to mention Social Security.
Why can't politicians be Roosevelts today? For an answer, let's look to the middle of 1935, about two years into FDR's New Deal and the equivalent of about now in the election cycle. The federal government was still smaller than the nation's state and local governments combined. Two out of 10 men were unemployed. FDR took the economic emergency as a powerful mandate for further lawmaking. He jumped into the project with all the glee of a boy leaping into a sandbox. The papers reported that he was going to "blast out of committee" yet another round of bills, and blast he did � that year the country's premier labor law, the Wagner Act, was passed, as was Social Security.
At about the same time, Roosevelt slapped together the Rural Electrification Administration, which came on top of the New Deal's large farm subsidies. For construction workers, artists and writers, he created � also in mid-1935 � the Works Progress Administration, which hired the unemployed, including artists, craftsmen and journalists. To appreciate the size of that gift, imagine a contemporary politician responding to a market crash by putting ex-employees of Google on the federal payroll. The president also built on to an already large structure, the Public Works Administration, which funded town halls, grammar schools and swimming pools in 3,000 counties. The money? Roosevelt passed a tax increase that opponents called the "soak the rich" act. It contained an estate tax rate hike that would make John Edwards drool. By 1936, the government took up more than 9% of gross domestic product. For the first peacetime year in U.S. history, Washington had edged past the state and local governments in size to become a larger part of the national economy. (Just a few years earlier, state and local governments had been twice as large as Washington.) FDR had reversed the old crucial ratio of federalism, and Washington has dominated the country ever since.
Those early commitments set a trend of promises. Some of them became what we now call entitlements. Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s layered on governmental commitments with the Great Society. President Bush has heaped on more, with a new entitlement: prescription drugs for seniors. Only a narrow part of the federal budget remains for discretionary spending � the part left over for new ideas. And setting aside the question of whether an individual program is good, bad or simply in need of an overhaul, we've found as a country that old commitments are simply too hard to undo.
This is partly because of the way the political game works. When you seek to take away a benefit from one targeted recipient, he will fight like crazy to keep it � think of the ferocious battles the farm lobby wages over even tiny reductions in agricultural subsidies. Those who gain from reducing the size of the handout, however, are members of the lobbyless general public who will receive only an incremental advantage, maybe the equivalent of a penny or two apiece. So the rest of us don't have the incentive or ability to apply countervailing pressure. Yet that's exactly what we need today: the energy and exhilaration of FDR in his first term.
Today's timidity would have disturbed FDR, who had no trouble knocking down the sandcastles he had made. Early in the 1930s, he created 4 million jobs with the Civilian Works Administration, then uncreated them when he decided the CWA was too close to the English dole. When he tired of Harold Ickes' Public Works Administration, he scaled it back, and finally abolished it in 1941. As for Ickes' Department of the Interior, FDR decided that it was time to revise it into "a real Conservation Department" � a change many would welcome today.
A few leaders since FDR have persuaded Congress to help them bring about changes on this scale � Ronald Reagan's bipartisan tax reform of 1986 and Bill Clinton's welfare reform a decade later come to mind. These presidents were truer to FDR's spirit than the hesitating Congress of today. Clearing some blank space for new institutions is possible. But lawmakers won't do it if they honor Rooseveltian edifices more than Roosevelt did himself.
hair cute anime wallpapers for
sachin_216
11-02 09:57 AM
Check this site...
How to record departure from the United States after the fact (http://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/752/kw/I%20forgot%20to%20turn%20in%20my%20I-94)
How to record departure from the United States after the fact (http://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/752/kw/I%20forgot%20to%20turn%20in%20my%20I-94)
more...
desigirl
11-29 03:24 PM
DHS | How Is It Working For You? The CIS Ombudsman’s Community Call-In Teleconference Series (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1171038701035.shtm)
The Office of the CIS Ombudsman is hosting teleconferences to discuss your interactions with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Join us to share your comments, thoughts, and suggestions as well as any issues of concern.
Upcoming Teleconferences
* Upcoming Teleconference � �FOIA � How Is It Working For You?� December 6, 2:00 � 3:00 EST � NEW 11/29/2010
How to Participate
To participate in these calls, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov
The Office of the CIS Ombudsman is hosting teleconferences to discuss your interactions with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Join us to share your comments, thoughts, and suggestions as well as any issues of concern.
Upcoming Teleconferences
* Upcoming Teleconference � �FOIA � How Is It Working For You?� December 6, 2:00 � 3:00 EST � NEW 11/29/2010
How to Participate
To participate in these calls, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov
hot 100 CG Girls + Fantasy CG
B3NKobe
08-21 08:56 AM
Hi, as i am only a rookie at multimedia like flash - photoshop etc i am willing to do small work for people who need it - justas long as the job isnt too hard for me - i am getting better and better each day at flash and photoshop.
i hope to improve alot more.
i am not all that good at flash actionscript yet though so please dont ask for anything to hard in flash, but i am reading a book i brought on flash and hopefullysoon i will b more expericaned at it.
If interested email meat: ben_ben26@hotmail.com
Thank-You Ben
i hope to improve alot more.
i am not all that good at flash actionscript yet though so please dont ask for anything to hard in flash, but i am reading a book i brought on flash and hopefullysoon i will b more expericaned at it.
If interested email meat: ben_ben26@hotmail.com
Thank-You Ben
more...
house Anime Girls wallpapers no4745
ameerka_dream
04-04 01:11 PM
^^^^^^^^^^bump^^^^^^^^^^
tattoo Anime Girls Wallpapers HD Ever
mambarg
07-18 02:48 PM
Is the email printout of 140 approval enough to attach to 485 app.
I have not received the printed notice and do not want to wait for it.
I want to go ahead with attaching approved email of 140.
Is it ok ?
Thanks
I have not received the printed notice and do not want to wait for it.
I want to go ahead with attaching approved email of 140.
Is it ok ?
Thanks
more...
pictures anime wallpaper cute girl.
Dipika
03-31 12:05 PM
Guys, Ron Gotcher wants to get a sense of the recent productivity of the CIS, following their policy change with respect to FBI name check results.
please give your vote here:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4706
This poll asks you to state how long your AOS application has been pending and whether it is still pending or has been closed out since mid-February, 2008. Please make sure that you only click two selections: one for the length of time your AOS has been pending and the other for whether it is still pending or has been closed out recently.
based on our votes he may help us batter way.
please give your vote here:
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4706
This poll asks you to state how long your AOS application has been pending and whether it is still pending or has been closed out since mid-February, 2008. Please make sure that you only click two selections: one for the length of time your AOS has been pending and the other for whether it is still pending or has been closed out recently.
based on our votes he may help us batter way.
dresses anime wallpaper girls. Cute
martinvisalaw
07-31 12:24 PM
You may be eligible. CIS usually requires 4 years of university-level education for a degree, or 3 years experience for every one year missing from a 4-year degree. An educational evaluator could say for certain if you have the equivalent of a US bachelor's degree.
more...
makeup cute anime wallpapers for
coolhunk897
07-21 02:00 PM
I have applied for OPT application (applied first time) in second week of May @ Vermont Service Center.
In last week of June, my employer filed H1B visa via premium processing and it gets approved within a week. H1B start date is Dec 1, 2010.
Last week, I received RFE for my OPT application stating that my status has changed to H1B. Please provide approval receipt. I have sent the approval receipt to USCIS. Current online status of OPT application shows that USCIS office received requested documents and my case is pending.
1. Will it affect my OPT application?
2. My original joining date is already postponed by 2 weeks. Still I am waiting for OPT card. Should I request expedite processing of my OPT application? or should I wait?
Please let me know. Thanks.
In last week of June, my employer filed H1B visa via premium processing and it gets approved within a week. H1B start date is Dec 1, 2010.
Last week, I received RFE for my OPT application stating that my status has changed to H1B. Please provide approval receipt. I have sent the approval receipt to USCIS. Current online status of OPT application shows that USCIS office received requested documents and my case is pending.
1. Will it affect my OPT application?
2. My original joining date is already postponed by 2 weeks. Still I am waiting for OPT card. Should I request expedite processing of my OPT application? or should I wait?
Please let me know. Thanks.
girlfriend leach girls wallpaper. anime
Digitalosophy
03-23 01:03 PM
Ha nice one
hairstyles Anime
.jpg "Fairy Tail Girl Sexy Wallpaper")
EndlessWait
09-08 02:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
See how the bulls came back together to fight the lions. Awseome video! Pls watch till the end. its 8+ minutes.
Fight fight..together..
PS: Its an inspirational video. We are fighting the odds of bureaucracy
See how the bulls came back together to fight the lions. Awseome video! Pls watch till the end. its 8+ minutes.
Fight fight..together..
PS: Its an inspirational video. We are fighting the odds of bureaucracy
kernel_flash
01-21 03:24 AM
Here is my first official entry
Made in hurry !!!!
Preview
http://megaswf.com/view/74494201d407c983ec7ffcd16de342e0.html
Cheers
Kernel
Made in hurry !!!!
Preview
http://megaswf.com/view/74494201d407c983ec7ffcd16de342e0.html
Cheers
Kernel
raju3g
08-08 04:07 AM
Its not an issue. Make sure u fill all ur future applications like ssn, green card etc as per your passport. also ur birth certificate should be like ur passport details name date of birth and place of birth.
No comments:
Post a Comment