Blog Feeds
05-03 08:40 AM
This past week we saw people from all walks of life debating about this unreasonable law. Even Arizona law enforcement personnel feel that this is going to create more harm than good. The shine of light to the Arizona law - if there is one - is that it has shaken our nation's leaders into dealing with the need for immigration reform. In large numbers in Arizona and nationwide, people have turned out protesting the law. For more information about the new Arizona Law email me.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/05/san_diego_immigration_lawyer_p_1.html)
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/05/san_diego_immigration_lawyer_p_1.html)
wallpaper short hairstyles fine hair
jessie1981
08-01 02:32 PM
Conclustion: "This Court finds that the FBI owes no duty to an applicant to process his or her background check. Absent a duty to the applicant, neither the Mandamus Act nor the Administrative Procedures Act confer jurisdiction on this Court over the FBI. Without an independent basis for jurisdiction over the FBI, and since the Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer jurisdiction, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to review any decisions or actions of the FBI regarding its processing of a background check for CIS that is related to immigration matters."
It seems that suing FBI becomes ineffective now.
It seems that suing FBI becomes ineffective now.
vinzak
05-18 11:26 AM
My friends received Green cards in 2007. They live abroad, but make regular trips tho the Us to visit family and maintain their GC.
Unfortunaltely, they recently misplaced their green cards. They are planning a trip to the US this month, for which they have received travel letters from the US Embassy abroad.
Would anyone know what the process is afterwords? We know they have to file I-90s to replace their lost GC. Does this have to be done at the port of entry? Or is it done at a local office on reaching their final US destination?
Also, will they be called for a biometric appointment locally or can that be done at a Port of Entry. Can the biometric be done at a location abroad?
If anyone has any info on this, it'd be truly appreciated.
Unfortunaltely, they recently misplaced their green cards. They are planning a trip to the US this month, for which they have received travel letters from the US Embassy abroad.
Would anyone know what the process is afterwords? We know they have to file I-90s to replace their lost GC. Does this have to be done at the port of entry? Or is it done at a local office on reaching their final US destination?
Also, will they be called for a biometric appointment locally or can that be done at a Port of Entry. Can the biometric be done at a location abroad?
If anyone has any info on this, it'd be truly appreciated.
2011 hairstyles for short fine hair
amicable
07-18 08:50 PM
Hi friends
I am not sure if I am posting it in the right forum. So please excuse me if not. My cousin have some immigration case going on in San antonia, Texas court. She lives in California. Her court date is on 30th July in texas. I need help to find a good immigration lawyer for her. Could you guys please suggest me immgration lawyer (if possible Indian) there, so that I could contact asap. TIA.
I am not sure if I am posting it in the right forum. So please excuse me if not. My cousin have some immigration case going on in San antonia, Texas court. She lives in California. Her court date is on 30th July in texas. I need help to find a good immigration lawyer for her. Could you guys please suggest me immgration lawyer (if possible Indian) there, so that I could contact asap. TIA.
more...
Lord Rahl
03-04 10:03 PM
This reminds me of the guy from office space for some reason or the guy from that other one.... what's it called.... the quiet guy I think?
Nice job.
Nice job.
Dhundhun
06-11 12:49 PM
My attorney is asking $500 for filing both EAD and AP as filing fee. So was wondering how difficult it is to file by my self. Does anyone has expereince filing for renewal.?
You could refer http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18737
You could refer http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18737
more...
davidmaria
06-25 02:55 PM
Is there any way to know if 140 revoked after approval.is there any change in LUD ?
2010 tattoo hair styles picture
Blog Feeds
08-06 08:20 PM
Well this came out of nowhere. Last night the Senate passed an emergency border enforcement bill that provides $600 million for increased security on the southern US border. The $600 million will come from raising fees on staffing companies. The fee will increase by $2250 for each L-1 visa application for companies that employ 50 or more workers if 50% of the workforce is on an H-1B or an L-1. The fee will increase by $2000 for each H-1B application for companies with 50 or more workers with 50% or more in L-1 or H-1B status.That means L-1 fees will...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/senate-border-budget-bill-pays-for-enforcement-with-new-h1b-and-l1-fees.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/senate-border-budget-bill-pays-for-enforcement-with-new-h1b-and-l1-fees.html)
more...
munnu77
07-07 06:23 PM
sorry..my thread title has not enuf info. I cannot change it,,if someone can change to H4-H1-H4..I wud appreciate
hair People with fine hair use
monu19_75
06-16 11:42 PM
Hello
Thank you for your time and I appreciate your effort.
Scenario:
I have two Approved I-140s (both filed by same company).
� Filed I-140 & I-485 concurrently with a PD of Nov 2007 (Original Labor) - I-140 Approved and I-485 Pending
� Filed I-140 with PD March 2005 (Substitution Labor) - I-140 Approved.
Questions:
1. I would greatly appreciate if you can let me know what are my options and any relative information (Letter formats etc.)
2. Can Info-Pass work instead of writing to USCIS?
Thank you for your time and I appreciate your effort.
Scenario:
I have two Approved I-140s (both filed by same company).
� Filed I-140 & I-485 concurrently with a PD of Nov 2007 (Original Labor) - I-140 Approved and I-485 Pending
� Filed I-140 with PD March 2005 (Substitution Labor) - I-140 Approved.
Questions:
1. I would greatly appreciate if you can let me know what are my options and any relative information (Letter formats etc.)
2. Can Info-Pass work instead of writing to USCIS?
more...
anairda
05-24 08:04 PM
If your labor is not approved by June 09, you can extend H1-B based on pending labor for more than 1 year. If it will be approved before June, you will be able to apply I-140 premium processing and then extend H1.
hot Short Hairstyles for Fine Hair
scamp
08-26 05:26 PM
Pls Help anyone???:confused:
more...
house short hair styles for women
hary_s123
02-09 01:40 PM
My wife switched from H4 to F1 status and is near completion of her Masters degree.
She will be traveling to India soon and will be getting her F1 visa stamped.
Documents/advice from anyone who has done this recently will be appreciated.
welcome any suggestions/pointers in this regard.
She will be traveling to India soon and will be getting her F1 visa stamped.
Documents/advice from anyone who has done this recently will be appreciated.
welcome any suggestions/pointers in this regard.
tattoo short hairstyles fine hair.
cahimmihelp
07-12 01:18 PM
Hi,
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help.
Thanks a lot,
CAH
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help.
Thanks a lot,
CAH
more...
pictures hair styles for fine
Babuji
07-18 11:24 AM
Primary applicant is on EAD, how much min amount primary applicant has to show on W-2s?
question related to Dependent RFE:
Please submit evidence to prove legal immigration status in the USA from Jul 01, 2003 to Jul 29, 2004(I485 Receipt Date).
As dependent I came to US on H4 in 2001 and applied for H1 and approved in Jan 2002 (approved from Jan'2002 to Feb'2004).
Then don't know lawyer applied for my H4 extension along with my spouse's H1 extension. But they sent my passport for H4 stamping (stamped from Dec 2003 to Dec 2005). ie. I have 2 statuses at the same time and also here note that during december I was working. One more thing here my lawyer applied for my H1 renewal and got extension from Feb 2004 to Dec 2006.
Which extension papers(H1 or H4 attached with I94), should the dependent need to send to show legal immigrant status for the above query?really scared situation.
Please give your valuable suggestions.
question related to Dependent RFE:
Please submit evidence to prove legal immigration status in the USA from Jul 01, 2003 to Jul 29, 2004(I485 Receipt Date).
As dependent I came to US on H4 in 2001 and applied for H1 and approved in Jan 2002 (approved from Jan'2002 to Feb'2004).
Then don't know lawyer applied for my H4 extension along with my spouse's H1 extension. But they sent my passport for H4 stamping (stamped from Dec 2003 to Dec 2005). ie. I have 2 statuses at the same time and also here note that during december I was working. One more thing here my lawyer applied for my H1 renewal and got extension from Feb 2004 to Dec 2006.
Which extension papers(H1 or H4 attached with I94), should the dependent need to send to show legal immigrant status for the above query?really scared situation.
Please give your valuable suggestions.
dresses For straight short hair bobs
siddhu98
07-23 12:43 PM
My daughter (5 yrs) is an US citizen and having passport valid until end of Sep 2009 and having POI card for 15 years from Indian consulate.
Now I am planning to take her to India for 3 weeks from Aug 1st week. The travel agents says her passport should have at least 6 months valid from the date of date of the return (Aug 4th week). Is that true/correct? Can she enter here in USA after her India visit with 20 days left in the passport validity?
I will be using my AP though I maintain H1B status (I-797) and work for the same employer.
Thanks for your reply.
Now I am planning to take her to India for 3 weeks from Aug 1st week. The travel agents says her passport should have at least 6 months valid from the date of date of the return (Aug 4th week). Is that true/correct? Can she enter here in USA after her India visit with 20 days left in the passport validity?
I will be using my AP though I maintain H1B status (I-797) and work for the same employer.
Thanks for your reply.
more...
makeup short hair styles for fine
INDIAUSGC
08-27 05:02 PM
Lost in Transit..?
My EAD got approved on 08/14/2007 - TSC - (USCIS Site Update) but still I am waiting for the Physical card � does it really take more than
15 days to be delivered..? or should I be concerned..?
Did any body go through same�please share.
My EAD got approved on 08/14/2007 - TSC - (USCIS Site Update) but still I am waiting for the Physical card � does it really take more than
15 days to be delivered..? or should I be concerned..?
Did any body go through same�please share.
girlfriend short hairstyles for fine hair
raghu112
12-27 06:04 PM
No.
hairstyles Are there any hair styles that
waitingGC
03-18 09:51 AM
thanks
Robert Kumar
03-23 07:48 PM
Approved i-140
How many days is it taking these days for 140 to get approved.
How many days is it taking these days for 140 to get approved.
Macaca
07-29 06:14 PM
Partisans Gone Wild (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701691.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter (neverett@princeton.edu) Washington Post, July 29, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment