ssd_sl
07-26 10:40 AM
I applied for I485 like many others in July. I just heard my group may be spun off from its parent company and might be funded by VCs. Does this mean I cannot use my LC/I140? If/When I get my EAD will it be valid?
All ye learned people thanks in advance...
ssd_sl
All ye learned people thanks in advance...
ssd_sl
wallpaper wallpaper graffiti letters z
kirupa
05-06 06:11 PM
I liked your first one more also! I have added that one up :)
Blog Feeds
05-18 11:10 AM
I think most Immigration Judges try to do their job in a fair way. But there are a few that really cross the line way too often. The press has covered this and I've tried to bring some of these problems to light in this forum. Now EOIR wants people who have been victimized by poor conduct from an Immigration Judge to complain and they've established a complaint portal on their web site.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/eoir-creates-process-to-complain-about-bad-immigration-judges.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/eoir-creates-process-to-complain-about-bad-immigration-judges.html)
2011 wallpaper love letter
sugaur
09-27 01:04 PM
Stewart and Colbert and Hippy Liberals, but I love their show.
more...
Blog Feeds
08-14 01:40 PM
As the prospects for Immigration reform are becoming more of a reality, so does the debate about illegal Immigration is more real than ever. A story just came in from CNN an Arizona man caught leaving water bottles in the desert for illegal immigrants has been sentenced to 300 hours of community service and a year of probation.
Walt Staton, a member of the group No More Deaths, left full water bottles in December in Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge for the illegal immigrants who routinely pass through the 18,000-acre refuge. Read more here (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/13/arizona.immigrant.advocate/index.html)
As the Immigration debate heats up this summer, expect more stories like this one.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/american_sentenced_after_leavi.html)
Walt Staton, a member of the group No More Deaths, left full water bottles in December in Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge for the illegal immigrants who routinely pass through the 18,000-acre refuge. Read more here (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/13/arizona.immigrant.advocate/index.html)
As the Immigration debate heats up this summer, expect more stories like this one.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/american_sentenced_after_leavi.html)
sri@180
02-21 09:42 AM
Can i cancel appoinment one day before.
I saw in www.vfs-usa.co.in website ,have to cancel before two working days of appointment day.
If i cancel appointmentafter few days will i have to fill again DS156,157 forms for appointment.
In website they said cant cancel appointment 2 times.After 2 times cancelation have to wait 90 days with that hdfc barcode.
Before 90 days period can we fix new appoinment by paying agian into HDFC bank.Is this possible new appointment with new barcode.
I saw in www.vfs-usa.co.in website ,have to cancel before two working days of appointment day.
If i cancel appointmentafter few days will i have to fill again DS156,157 forms for appointment.
In website they said cant cancel appointment 2 times.After 2 times cancelation have to wait 90 days with that hdfc barcode.
Before 90 days period can we fix new appoinment by paying agian into HDFC bank.Is this possible new appointment with new barcode.
more...
Pasquale
04-01 12:30 AM
Electric eyebrows on a baby would be hot!
2010 Screenshots Letter To Rose LWP
kirupa
03-20 08:17 PM
Added!
more...
Comiccmadd
07-21 05:34 AM
Another one.
I quite like these brushes, that's why im using them everywhere:D
http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac8/Jellyfish103/calligraphicstyle.jpg
I quite like these brushes, that's why im using them everywhere:D
http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac8/Jellyfish103/calligraphicstyle.jpg
hair Download S Alphabetic Theme
iamgsprabhu
04-19 10:10 PM
Want to Know What the President Thinks about Immigration Reform? Ask Him!
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11041944 (posted Apr. 19, 2011)"
On Wednesday, April 20th at 1:45 pm PT / 4:45 pm ET, President Obama is hosting a live Facebook town hall event titled �Shared Responsibility and Shared Prosperity� from Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, California. The event will be live streamed on the White House Facebook page and the White House website.
Participate in this event by submitting your questions (immigration-related or not) on the White House Facebook page or submit a question using the following form.
Is there anybody from core team who can communicate our EB3 delay to the President ?
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11041944 (posted Apr. 19, 2011)"
On Wednesday, April 20th at 1:45 pm PT / 4:45 pm ET, President Obama is hosting a live Facebook town hall event titled �Shared Responsibility and Shared Prosperity� from Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, California. The event will be live streamed on the White House Facebook page and the White House website.
Participate in this event by submitting your questions (immigration-related or not) on the White House Facebook page or submit a question using the following form.
Is there anybody from core team who can communicate our EB3 delay to the President ?
more...
Blog Feeds
04-26 11:30 AM
Kudos to my colleague Elissa Taub who pointed out something rather interesting that none of the supporters of the Arizona law have told Arizonans. Under federal immigration law, a removal proceeding is a civil proceeding and one is not entitled to a public defender or any assistance in paying for help from an immigration lawyer. However, the new Arizona law makes it a state crime to be illegally present in the state. What this means is that any person charged under the new law is entitled to a taxpayer funded public defender or taxpayer funded private lawyer. And we lawyers...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/arizona-taxpayers-will-now-have-to-pay-for-lawyers-for-immigrants.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/arizona-taxpayers-will-now-have-to-pay-for-lawyers-for-immigrants.html)
hot Find Sporty Wallpapers Letter
chil3
05-01 06:37 AM
Does anyone know if there are any support group/s out there to help plan moving back to india, for good?
The logistics and closing all the open look in US is a daunting task and it would be great if there are any support groups out there.
Go to...R2ICLUB - R2ICLUB - Articles Front Page (http://www.r2iclubforums.com/)
you will have all the info
The logistics and closing all the open look in US is a daunting task and it would be great if there are any support groups out there.
Go to...R2ICLUB - R2ICLUB - Articles Front Page (http://www.r2iclubforums.com/)
you will have all the info
more...
house The Letters R Graffiti
pr_001
04-12 05:23 PM
Hi,
I am transferring my H1B from Employer A to B.
With Employer A, I had my recent H1B extension approved till Oct 31 2011.
I am going to have the period on this transfer as June 1 2009 - Oct 31 2011. (Which will 6 yrs in total on H1B status for me).
I have question on form I-129, "Requested Action" section.
Out of the following options, which one should I "Check":
1. Extend the stay of the person(s) since they now hold this status.
2. Amend the stay of the person(s) since they now hold this status.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Prem.
I am transferring my H1B from Employer A to B.
With Employer A, I had my recent H1B extension approved till Oct 31 2011.
I am going to have the period on this transfer as June 1 2009 - Oct 31 2011. (Which will 6 yrs in total on H1B status for me).
I have question on form I-129, "Requested Action" section.
Out of the following options, which one should I "Check":
1. Extend the stay of the person(s) since they now hold this status.
2. Amend the stay of the person(s) since they now hold this status.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Prem.
tattoo I Love Letters 2 Wallpaper
cled
October 28th, 2004, 09:13 PM
Second try.
Comments ?
Thanks.
Comments ?
Thanks.
more...
pictures Love Letter Wallpapers,
rbharol
08-21 03:53 PM
http://www.petitiononline.com/legalimm/petition.html
dresses Men Of Letters: letters
Blog Feeds
06-05 01:20 PM
The May 20, 2009 Memo from Barbara Velarde, Chief of USCIS Service Center Operations, (�Velarde Memo� or �Memo�) provides some important guidance to adjudicators on the requirements for H-1B beneficiaries seeking to practice in certain health care occupations, which is of significant import to occupational therapists ("OTs") and physical therapists ("PTs"). The crux of this guidance is as follows: advanced degrees are not required for health care professionals enumerated under 8 CFR 212.15(c) (including OT and PT candidates) applying for the H-1B nonimmigrant visa classification�thereby reversing a recent trend of USICS in denying H-1Bs for OTs and PTs who do...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2009/05/velarde-memo-issues-new-guidance-to-adjudicators-on-requirements-for-h-1b-beneficiaries-seeking-to-practice-in-certain-heath.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2009/05/velarde-memo-issues-new-guidance-to-adjudicators-on-requirements-for-h-1b-beneficiaries-seeking-to-practice-in-certain-heath.html)
more...
makeup the form of letter(s) from
raysaikat
08-30 11:40 PM
If the H1-B came with I-94 attached to the I797 form, then your status would be H1-B from the day written on the I-94 form. From that day, you cannot work with the employer A without filing another H1-B with employer A.
girlfriend The second letter (real mail)
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
hairstyles face painting Love Letters
Immi95
02-17 10:04 AM
Hello?
In Mid 2007, 7th year of H-1B transfer & extension was filed, and was no problem as I had an approved ETA-750 with ex-employer, but it was expired soon as the sponsor�s (ex-employer) company was closed at the end of 2007.
The 7th year approval period was 12/11/2007 ~ 12/10/2008 with the current employer.
I filed another labor certification (ETA-9089) on 10/23/2007 which was sponsored by my current employer, and it has not been approved yet.
Using this ETA-9089 pending more than 365 days, I filed an I-129 extension for 8th year of H1B last November 2008, but INS sent "Request For additional Evidence Sent" letter which was saying to be provided �An evidence of pending / being processed for more than 365 days of labor certification or I-140 prior to 6 year expired of H-1B�. we just realized that a memo was posted regarding this on 05/30/2008.
As I don�t have this evidence... Please advise or recommend me...
In Mid 2007, 7th year of H-1B transfer & extension was filed, and was no problem as I had an approved ETA-750 with ex-employer, but it was expired soon as the sponsor�s (ex-employer) company was closed at the end of 2007.
The 7th year approval period was 12/11/2007 ~ 12/10/2008 with the current employer.
I filed another labor certification (ETA-9089) on 10/23/2007 which was sponsored by my current employer, and it has not been approved yet.
Using this ETA-9089 pending more than 365 days, I filed an I-129 extension for 8th year of H1B last November 2008, but INS sent "Request For additional Evidence Sent" letter which was saying to be provided �An evidence of pending / being processed for more than 365 days of labor certification or I-140 prior to 6 year expired of H-1B�. we just realized that a memo was posted regarding this on 05/30/2008.
As I don�t have this evidence... Please advise or recommend me...
lecter
February 27th, 2004, 07:46 AM
tis is great. I hasn't a "wow" factor, but it's certainly a good one to have done.... lots of learnings there..
Rob
Rob
gcformeornot
12-28 02:32 PM
...
No comments:
Post a Comment