vikki76
05-22 06:09 PM
It would be risky.F-1 visa requires strong ties to homeland. Since your parents are already here, it would be difficult for you to prove that you will indeed go back to India on completion of your studies.
wallpaper 2011 love wallpaper desktop.
keepwalking
06-02 06:19 PM
I have added my wife to green card application. Can you please let me know when she can expect receipt notice and Fingerprint Notice and when she can expect her GC. TSC is processing my/her application. My Priority Date is in Aug 1st 2006.
I am one of the ones who had missed the July 07 boat. My PD is finally current.
My attorney is getting ready to file all the items (485, EAD, AP etc) tomorrow.
How soon can I expect the FP Notice?
Also, since I am applying only now, how long before I can hope to see Green?
I am one of the ones who had missed the July 07 boat. My PD is finally current.
My attorney is getting ready to file all the items (485, EAD, AP etc) tomorrow.
How soon can I expect the FP Notice?
Also, since I am applying only now, how long before I can hope to see Green?
STAmisha
06-30 11:46 AM
My company is filing 140 and 485 on a preapproved LC (PD of 2005)
But my original LC in P-BEC just got cleared (PD of 2003). They told that they will also use my original LC for 140 as this gives better chance than the substituted one.
1)How Can I have 2 140's ?
3)How will it effect 485?
I'm confused ..please answer
But my original LC in P-BEC just got cleared (PD of 2003). They told that they will also use my original LC for 140 as this gives better chance than the substituted one.
1)How Can I have 2 140's ?
3)How will it effect 485?
I'm confused ..please answer
2011 free anime wallpapers: selena gomez who says video
sukhwinderd
09-13 07:14 AM
i just got my FP.
rest is in signature
rest is in signature
more...
psaxena
12-03 02:05 PM
Friends,
I want to request everyone - Members and non member ( they will have to sign up at IV) to please update the all the information for the tracker.
Please update any communication that you may have had with USCIS, like RFE, Reciept notice and any other information.
This information can be very useful to IV for generating reports and talk to the officials confidently with data and looking at the trends .. say for RFEs or something else.
Anonymous users please sign in at IV using any ID , and update all the information related to any communication in the past with USCIS.
I would request everyone , that after updating the profile please post a comment to this thread , so that this floats on the home page for a couple of days, so that more and more users can read it and update their profiles
I want to request everyone - Members and non member ( they will have to sign up at IV) to please update the all the information for the tracker.
Please update any communication that you may have had with USCIS, like RFE, Reciept notice and any other information.
This information can be very useful to IV for generating reports and talk to the officials confidently with data and looking at the trends .. say for RFEs or something else.
Anonymous users please sign in at IV using any ID , and update all the information related to any communication in the past with USCIS.
I would request everyone , that after updating the profile please post a comment to this thread , so that this floats on the home page for a couple of days, so that more and more users can read it and update their profiles
Robert Kumar
02-01 08:19 AM
^^^^^^^
more...
CRAZYMONK
07-22 01:43 PM
As it is filed for fiscal year 2008, it should start from Oct 2008.
So you can start working right away. Congrates and all the best
So you can start working right away. Congrates and all the best
2010 Selena Gomez photo
chiranjeevij
04-02 05:07 PM
Hi All,
My PERM details:
Filed 05/10/2008
Audited Sep 2008
Denied May 2010
Appealed Sep 2010 (Govt error)
Approved 03/25/2011
after nearly 3 yrs.
Another friend of mine (same company) was in the same boat, but his processing was like 3 months ahead of mine(for all these steps). His Appeal was sent to BALCA and he is waiting for their response.
encouragement for peeps out there.
My PERM details:
Filed 05/10/2008
Audited Sep 2008
Denied May 2010
Appealed Sep 2010 (Govt error)
Approved 03/25/2011
after nearly 3 yrs.
Another friend of mine (same company) was in the same boat, but his processing was like 3 months ahead of mine(for all these steps). His Appeal was sent to BALCA and he is waiting for their response.
encouragement for peeps out there.
more...
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
hair latest wallpapers of selena
casionojoy
12-17 05:48 AM
Non-Immigrant visa
Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Requirements for non immigrant visa:
A foreigner applies for a non-immigrant visa when he/she wants to stay or work in Thailand. This visa has several categories:
* diplomatic visa (D) is for those employed by an embassy,
* a business visa (B)
* or a mass media visa (M) are for accredited business or press representatives,
* a dependent visa (O),
* an expert visa (EX) are for those performing skilled or expert work,
* an investor visa (IM) is for foreigners who set-up their companies under the Board Of Investment BOI
* and a study/education visa (ED) is for teachers.
* Official ( F). Performance of official duties (involving the Thai government).
* Capital Investment ( IM ).
sports betting (http://betonline.com)
lingerie sexy (http://www.laurensilva.com)
Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Requirements for non immigrant visa:
A foreigner applies for a non-immigrant visa when he/she wants to stay or work in Thailand. This visa has several categories:
* diplomatic visa (D) is for those employed by an embassy,
* a business visa (B)
* or a mass media visa (M) are for accredited business or press representatives,
* a dependent visa (O),
* an expert visa (EX) are for those performing skilled or expert work,
* an investor visa (IM) is for foreigners who set-up their companies under the Board Of Investment BOI
* and a study/education visa (ED) is for teachers.
* Official ( F). Performance of official duties (involving the Thai government).
* Capital Investment ( IM ).
sports betting (http://betonline.com)
lingerie sexy (http://www.laurensilva.com)
more...
MDix
02-09 09:23 PM
OP is BOND and there is one JAMES BOND 707. Hopefully you guys will figure it out.:D
hot pictures tattoo is selena
tbo
04-06 11:34 PM
so old but very funny for some reason
more...
house Selena Gomez - Who Says
CCC
06-01 01:33 PM
As i understand it it may take upto 6 mons and may even take upto a year. Is that a safe bet? to I am planning on a vacation in Dec and i hate to be in limbo. My wife's I-140 has been approved and we are in the worldwide category.
So what do you guys think, should i just go ahead and book the tickets now or should i wait to see what happens in Oct? I would like your opinions however contrary :D
So what do you guys think, should i just go ahead and book the tickets now or should i wait to see what happens in Oct? I would like your opinions however contrary :D
tattoo selena gomez 2011 wallpaper hd
gc_on_demand
06-06 02:37 PM
Hi,
I just got H1B. My wife is currently on her F-1/OPT. Can anyone guide me where I can find required documents to apply for H4 for my wife? Do you think I can do it myself or it needs a lawyer?
Thank you,
John
John
Didn't create same thread. Please check that one. Please call members of lawmakers. Admin please close this thread.
I just got H1B. My wife is currently on her F-1/OPT. Can anyone guide me where I can find required documents to apply for H4 for my wife? Do you think I can do it myself or it needs a lawyer?
Thank you,
John
John
Didn't create same thread. Please check that one. Please call members of lawmakers. Admin please close this thread.
more...
pictures Selena Gomez talking
gc_bulgaria
09-28 07:23 PM
I have a certain labor category approved 19-#### and AOS is applied . Now the job I am looking at moving to has the same number (19-####) but the job duties are not exactly same. Will this be OK for AC21 or will I have problems?
dresses free justin bieber desktop
fromnaija
07-25 12:00 PM
It is clearly stated in the I-485 instructions that parents should sign for children below 14 years of age. Those 14 and above should sign for themselves.
Do we need to sign the I-485 docs on behalf of minors? My daughter is 9 years old and she has signed her papers all by herself. When I asked my attorney, one time she said I need to sign and finally she sent the docs with her signature only.
Do we need to sign the I-485 docs on behalf of minors? My daughter is 9 years old and she has signed her papers all by herself. When I asked my attorney, one time she said I need to sign and finally she sent the docs with her signature only.
more...
makeup hair Selena Gomez won top
Shevchuk
04-25 12:19 PM
Use special packer - BoxedApp Packer (http://boxedapp.com/)
girlfriend Selena Gomez,Selena Gomez
kirupa
10-31 06:22 AM
Added :P
hairstyles Selena Gomez Videos Selena
hlpimmigration
11-03 08:52 AM
Having a pending EB1 I-140 does not in itself confer any status. If you filed an I-485 concurrently, then you are permitted to remain in the US pending adjudication. If you have a currently valid H-1B you may remain or renew pending adjudication.
Best Regards
Helen Parsonage
Immigration Attorney
Best Regards
Helen Parsonage
Immigration Attorney
sinemkeceli
02-18 11:43 PM
I am in the process of applying for the green card but as the labor department was delayed to send the paperwork by status became out of status, my lawyer suggested me to go back to my country apply for H1B visa and come back. That is why I want to apply for H1B visa . My lawyer tells me that there is no way I can get an approval if my company doesnt show tax return documents for the last 2 years. Is it true or there is another way or documentation which could be used in order to apply for the visa? My boss doesnt want to show the tax returns but accepts to show a bank account and different type of paperwork such as franchise agreements or certificates.
Can you please let me know if my lawyer suggests me the righ way if not which woudl be the best way to continue my green card process and get a result as soon as possible.
Thank You
Can you please let me know if my lawyer suggests me the righ way if not which woudl be the best way to continue my green card process and get a result as soon as possible.
Thank You
pappu
08-21 03:58 PM
http://www.petitiononline.com/legalimm/petition.html
yes it was done by someone and this link was posted on a thread too. Many people signed but dont know what became of that.
several people signed as Anil Ambani , Amitabh Bachhan etc..
I am cynical about such online petitions and their usefulness.
yes it was done by someone and this link was posted on a thread too. Many people signed but dont know what became of that.
several people signed as Anil Ambani , Amitabh Bachhan etc..
I am cynical about such online petitions and their usefulness.
No comments:
Post a Comment