Blog Feeds
01-04 08:00 AM
When respected, albeit left-leaning, members of the punditocracy, like Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd, begin to make hard right turns, it's time to pay close attention. Yesterday, in reaction to the Christmas Day suicide bomb attempt on Northwest Flight 253 as it approached Detroit, Matthews, the host of MSNBC's Hardball, came closer than ever before to embracing what sounded like race- and faith-based profiling of air travelers and the willing surrender of large chunks of our civil rights if those measures would make us safer. Today, Dowd, a New York Times Op-Ed columnist, likened President Obama to Spock (not Benjamin,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/using-immigration-to-stem-the-terror-threat.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/using-immigration-to-stem-the-terror-threat.html)
wallpaper courtney love with long hair
Dirge
03-21 02:28 AM
This is another one of me for the contest. I wanted on with a more accurate portrayal of myself. I may have exaggerated the muscles a bit, but I'm mos'def in shape.
anyway I'm learning to code, it's going pretty terrible haha.
http://fc73.deviantart.com/fs42/f/2009/079/b/9/2nd_portrait_by_MelonCat.png
anyway I'm learning to code, it's going pretty terrible haha.
http://fc73.deviantart.com/fs42/f/2009/079/b/9/2nd_portrait_by_MelonCat.png
kilubilu46
11-08 07:18 PM
Hi All
Here's my experience. I only have original receipt notice for H1 extension. Local offices in Jersey City and Bayonne wouldn't renew driving license. I went to Trenton. There the supervisor's name is Jewel. She checked their TVR book and that says H1 extension receipt notice is enough for 8 months renewal. She helped me with that and said she would tell their bosses about the local offices.
Here's my experience. I only have original receipt notice for H1 extension. Local offices in Jersey City and Bayonne wouldn't renew driving license. I went to Trenton. There the supervisor's name is Jewel. She checked their TVR book and that says H1 extension receipt notice is enough for 8 months renewal. She helped me with that and said she would tell their bosses about the local offices.
2011 longhair.jpg
vxb2004
10-11 08:16 PM
Yes you can..but you will lose your H1B status. Read this article..very informative.
http://www.hooyou.com/h-1b/I-485%20filing%20memo.htm
Good Luck
http://www.hooyou.com/h-1b/I-485%20filing%20memo.htm
Good Luck
more...
nuke
03-18 11:11 PM
I have to file a loan application which requires me to state if I am a Lawful Permanent resident alien or not; and I am not sure if I am, can somebody please clarify if I am a Lawful Permanent resident alien or not if I have a pening I-485 application and I am working on EAD?
Thanks.
Thanks.
obelix
08-21 06:09 PM
Sorry for the cross posting.
My papers were sent on June 21st, but they were receipted only on June 27th. Turns out USCIS returned my $1000 for premium processing :(.
My lawyer said they talked to USCIS and USCIS asked them to re-file with proof of receipt.
Did anyone who filed in end June have their 140 premium processing returned?
My papers were sent on June 21st, but they were receipted only on June 27th. Turns out USCIS returned my $1000 for premium processing :(.
My lawyer said they talked to USCIS and USCIS asked them to re-file with proof of receipt.
Did anyone who filed in end June have their 140 premium processing returned?
more...
h1dedorebaba
05-24 12:09 PM
Hi,
I guess it is taking too much of time to get the receipt notice for H1 transfers/ext due to backlog. Let us fill out the following details and it will help everyone who is waiting for the receipt notice..
I saw one more thread like this but it was purely for premium cases.
Please fill in the following details:
Date Sent:
Receipt notice date:
Service Center: CSC/VSC/NSC/TSC
Approval date:
Processing type: Premium/Regular
Thanks.
Mine:
H1 Transfer
Date Sent: 05/22/07
Receipt notice date: Waiting
Service Center: CSC
Approval date: Waiting
Processing type: Regular
I guess it is taking too much of time to get the receipt notice for H1 transfers/ext due to backlog. Let us fill out the following details and it will help everyone who is waiting for the receipt notice..
I saw one more thread like this but it was purely for premium cases.
Please fill in the following details:
Date Sent:
Receipt notice date:
Service Center: CSC/VSC/NSC/TSC
Approval date:
Processing type: Premium/Regular
Thanks.
Mine:
H1 Transfer
Date Sent: 05/22/07
Receipt notice date: Waiting
Service Center: CSC
Approval date: Waiting
Processing type: Regular
2010 diy hairstyles for prom
Refugee_New
08-21 01:14 PM
I see thread for all other years (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007). So its my turn to open thread for my year.
Mine is EB2, Feb 2002. Still waiting. I was told that my NC is cleared.
3 SR, 2 letters to Ombudsman, letters to 3 senators, letters to 2 representatives, 2 fax to NSC, 2 letters to NSC Director, 1 infopass, numerous calls to NSC
Recently sent a letter to first lady. Looks like all of them are working together. Nobody wanted to respond.
Please feel free to write your experience if you are 2002 filer.
Mine is EB2, Feb 2002. Still waiting. I was told that my NC is cleared.
3 SR, 2 letters to Ombudsman, letters to 3 senators, letters to 2 representatives, 2 fax to NSC, 2 letters to NSC Director, 1 infopass, numerous calls to NSC
Recently sent a letter to first lady. Looks like all of them are working together. Nobody wanted to respond.
Please feel free to write your experience if you are 2002 filer.
more...
rockyrock
07-28 11:41 AM
I have got 2 I-140 (one pending and approved) both from different lawyers.....I applied 485 with my approved I-140 with this lawyer, but am not sure if he has applied or not as he had given wrong info few times before...... he claims he has applied.........my question is - Can I go ahead and apply another 485 with the pending I-140 frm another lawyer to be on the same side? I plan to withdraw one once I receive both receipts.....Any risks?
hair Diy wedding hairstyles
Macaca
11-14 09:30 PM
Congress Needs Both Comity and Accomplishments (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.27104,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call, November 14, 2007
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
more...
kirupa
03-10 11:07 PM
Added!
hot quot;diy hairstyles for promquot;,
newyorker123
08-31 01:50 PM
Is it having any advantage towards applying I-485 if getting married in US (H1B and other is on F1).
more...
house hair styles for your face
GCKaMaara
04-07 01:43 PM
In one of the threads Pappu suggested a very nice idea.
Everyone with difficult stories due to unfair immigration policies should make a youtube video and post a link here. Spoken stories will have much better effect.
Everyone with difficult stories due to unfair immigration policies should make a youtube video and post a link here. Spoken stories will have much better effect.
tattoo Toddler hair styles. short
aarohis123
03-07 07:44 PM
Hi,
I am in a situation where I changed my Job and new organization has filed the Visa Transfer process on 28 May 2010.
My and my dependents current H1-B / H4 and I-94 from the prior organization is expiring on March 14 2011 and the H1-B Transfer process has not been completed and rather it is now in the RFE Status as of Today i.e March - 7 2011.
Am I still eligible to stay in US or not. What should be my next course of action.
Please suggest at the earliest.
Thanks in advance for your help and support.
I am in a situation where I changed my Job and new organization has filed the Visa Transfer process on 28 May 2010.
My and my dependents current H1-B / H4 and I-94 from the prior organization is expiring on March 14 2011 and the H1-B Transfer process has not been completed and rather it is now in the RFE Status as of Today i.e March - 7 2011.
Am I still eligible to stay in US or not. What should be my next course of action.
Please suggest at the earliest.
Thanks in advance for your help and support.
more...
pictures Whether you will do it
Macaca
06-01 07:26 PM
Pelosi�s Order in the House (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01web-hulse.html) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01web-hulse.html), June 1, 2007
The differences between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert, could not be more striking.
He is a burly former wrestling coach, a conservative Republican from small-town Illinois who usually ran from the microphones. She is the designer-clad member of a political family, a wealthy liberal from San Francisco who sees herself as a top party spokeswoman.
But what could turn out to be their defining contrast was exhibited on May 24, when Ms. Pelosi allowed the Iraq war spending bill to clear the House with predominantly Republican votes while most Democrats � including her � opposed it. It was a marked departure from the principle that guided Mr. Hastert during his years as speaker.
Mr. Hastert was an advocate of governing the House by a �majority of the majority� � a standard he thought best served the interests of his Republican members and, by extension, the nation. Just months into her tenure, Ms. Pelosi has shown she will deviate from that approach, balancing the potential of significant rewards against big risks.
The rewards could come from success in winning approval of major legislation that reaches beyond party label. Critics of Mr. Hastert said his self-imposed rule prevented the House from considering centrist social and economic measures that, in their view, could have benefited both parties. It is likely, for instance, that a coalition existed in the House last year to pass an immigration overhaul that Republicans and Democrats could have hailed going into the elections. But strong opposition from a majority of the majority derailed that idea.
The risks are related to party cohesion. If a leader such as Ms. Pelosi regularly cuts against the wishes of most of the people who put her in leadership, it stands to reason they would eventually wonder if new leadership was warranted. At a more subtle level, passing important bills with coalitions built outside party lines can expose and deepen fractures within them and sap the support of interest groups that can be essential to winning and holding onto power.
Republicans see internal problems for Democrats as they sort through how to govern. �The problem for Pelosi is that the majority of her majority still has a minority mindset,� said John Feehery, a lobbyist who was an adviser to Mr. Hastert. �They would rather protest than legislate. And that dynamic will weaken her control over the House in the long-run."
While some anti-war groups remain outraged at the war vote, many Democrats were not all that upset with the way she handled it. Through some procedural maneuvers, the speaker allowed Democrats to back a minimum wage increase and popular domestic spending and still vote against the war money. At the same time, Democrats got out of what the leadership saw as a political jam that could have left them being blamed for cutting off money to troops overseas.
The next test for Ms. Pelosi will come on looming votes over increased free trade. Many - perhaps most - House Democrats are leery of going along with the push by President Bush, free-trading Democrats and congressional Republicans for new trade deals that they believe ship jobs out of the country and lack labor and environmental safeguards.
To some veteran House Democrats, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement is a particularly bitter memory. A majority of then-minority Republicans joined with a minority of then-majority Democrats to pass the deal sought by President Bill Clinton. Quite a few Democrats believe that approval of the trade deal over the objections of organized labor diluted union support in 1994 and contributed to the loss of Congress by the Democrats that year. Ms. Pelosi was among 102 Democrats who backed the 1993 trade deal; 156 Democrats, including the majority leader and whip, opposed it.
Anti-trade Democrats are worried the war vote foreshadowed Ms. Pelosi making a similar trade move this year, forgetting the hard lessons of NAFTA. They promise that such a decision will stir strong resentment. Ms. Pelosi has urged lawmakers not to jump to conclusions, but she is making no guarantees that legislation must have majority Democratic backing.
�I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus,� she told reporters.
The differences between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert, could not be more striking.
He is a burly former wrestling coach, a conservative Republican from small-town Illinois who usually ran from the microphones. She is the designer-clad member of a political family, a wealthy liberal from San Francisco who sees herself as a top party spokeswoman.
But what could turn out to be their defining contrast was exhibited on May 24, when Ms. Pelosi allowed the Iraq war spending bill to clear the House with predominantly Republican votes while most Democrats � including her � opposed it. It was a marked departure from the principle that guided Mr. Hastert during his years as speaker.
Mr. Hastert was an advocate of governing the House by a �majority of the majority� � a standard he thought best served the interests of his Republican members and, by extension, the nation. Just months into her tenure, Ms. Pelosi has shown she will deviate from that approach, balancing the potential of significant rewards against big risks.
The rewards could come from success in winning approval of major legislation that reaches beyond party label. Critics of Mr. Hastert said his self-imposed rule prevented the House from considering centrist social and economic measures that, in their view, could have benefited both parties. It is likely, for instance, that a coalition existed in the House last year to pass an immigration overhaul that Republicans and Democrats could have hailed going into the elections. But strong opposition from a majority of the majority derailed that idea.
The risks are related to party cohesion. If a leader such as Ms. Pelosi regularly cuts against the wishes of most of the people who put her in leadership, it stands to reason they would eventually wonder if new leadership was warranted. At a more subtle level, passing important bills with coalitions built outside party lines can expose and deepen fractures within them and sap the support of interest groups that can be essential to winning and holding onto power.
Republicans see internal problems for Democrats as they sort through how to govern. �The problem for Pelosi is that the majority of her majority still has a minority mindset,� said John Feehery, a lobbyist who was an adviser to Mr. Hastert. �They would rather protest than legislate. And that dynamic will weaken her control over the House in the long-run."
While some anti-war groups remain outraged at the war vote, many Democrats were not all that upset with the way she handled it. Through some procedural maneuvers, the speaker allowed Democrats to back a minimum wage increase and popular domestic spending and still vote against the war money. At the same time, Democrats got out of what the leadership saw as a political jam that could have left them being blamed for cutting off money to troops overseas.
The next test for Ms. Pelosi will come on looming votes over increased free trade. Many - perhaps most - House Democrats are leery of going along with the push by President Bush, free-trading Democrats and congressional Republicans for new trade deals that they believe ship jobs out of the country and lack labor and environmental safeguards.
To some veteran House Democrats, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement is a particularly bitter memory. A majority of then-minority Republicans joined with a minority of then-majority Democrats to pass the deal sought by President Bill Clinton. Quite a few Democrats believe that approval of the trade deal over the objections of organized labor diluted union support in 1994 and contributed to the loss of Congress by the Democrats that year. Ms. Pelosi was among 102 Democrats who backed the 1993 trade deal; 156 Democrats, including the majority leader and whip, opposed it.
Anti-trade Democrats are worried the war vote foreshadowed Ms. Pelosi making a similar trade move this year, forgetting the hard lessons of NAFTA. They promise that such a decision will stir strong resentment. Ms. Pelosi has urged lawmakers not to jump to conclusions, but she is making no guarantees that legislation must have majority Democratic backing.
�I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus,� she told reporters.
dresses Ashley Tisdale Hair Styles
ardnahc
03-25 06:35 PM
Hi,
We filed our 485s during the July 2007 fiasco. We moved after an year, so we updated USCIS with our new address by filling AR11 online for all the petitions(485s, 140)
My 485 status is in pending state but by husband's petition has a status of "Notice Returned as Undeliverable". Now it is more than 6 months since that update. Do I have to follow up on it? Any input appreciated. Thanks much in advance.
We filed our 485s during the July 2007 fiasco. We moved after an year, so we updated USCIS with our new address by filling AR11 online for all the petitions(485s, 140)
My 485 status is in pending state but by husband's petition has a status of "Notice Returned as Undeliverable". Now it is more than 6 months since that update. Do I have to follow up on it? Any input appreciated. Thanks much in advance.
more...
makeup DIY Hair Styles Celebrity DIY
Jaime
08-30 11:27 AM
Page 42 of the study is interesting, where a suggestion is raised for changes to count the time stuck waiting in retrogression towards naturalization. That would only be fair.
girlfriend long hair emo styles. Do you
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?
hairstyles quot;short thick hair stylesquot;.
sabgau
04-06 11:06 AM
I recently got my H1 3 yr extension based on I-140 approval, I want to change my job to company B but my employer Company A says that he will have to revoke the I-140(as per company attorneys), Will this affect my H1 extension(as in will I be out of status?) and can I retain my PD?
Also does anyone know a good lawyer I can consult over the phone?
Thanks.
Also does anyone know a good lawyer I can consult over the phone?
Thanks.
vaayu
05-26 11:33 AM
We always e-file both AP and EAD even when we dont use them. I recenly filed mine 2 weeks ago. Its easy and fast.
kirupa
03-01 08:43 PM
It can be done in Swift 3D. First, create a box. Then create a pyramid shape and place it above the box. Color the pyramid red and the box a white or brown. You now have a house. I do apologize for the terseness of this message; I'm in a hurry to help more people!!!! :) If this does not help, please reply back and I'll try to elaborate!
No comments:
Post a Comment