immi2006
05-24 09:14 AM
If you want to make decisions do it based on career progress not on GC.
I seriously doubt if you can get your GC IMHO, reason being with 7 % of 90000 being a small number for any country. Particularly India / China, DO you know something - there are thousands in line from 2002 onwards waiting to file 485.
Even after 10 years of wait the number will still not be enough to fill the 485 backlog. I do not want to sound as someone not wishing you well. I am touching on ground realities.
I seriously doubt if you can get your GC IMHO, reason being with 7 % of 90000 being a small number for any country. Particularly India / China, DO you know something - there are thousands in line from 2002 onwards waiting to file 485.
Even after 10 years of wait the number will still not be enough to fill the 485 backlog. I do not want to sound as someone not wishing you well. I am touching on ground realities.
wallpaper Jessica Biel Ombre Hair Color
raj3078
04-27 11:08 AM
This looks like a hoax to me. Could you quote a credible news story or a link on a enforcement site where there is any advisory?
Pappu,
This is the hoax and seems like an attempt to discredit India Law system. Please close the thread. We should not be party to such attempts. I get tons of emails like that including the one which talks about getting 10 million of lottery prize money. If I start believeing them then god save me....Please close this immediately.:mad:
Pappu,
This is the hoax and seems like an attempt to discredit India Law system. Please close the thread. We should not be party to such attempts. I get tons of emails like that including the one which talks about getting 10 million of lottery prize money. If I start believeing them then god save me....Please close this immediately.:mad:
SunnySurya
08-03 08:32 PM
Looks like they (TSC) are now processing July 3rd onwards. Any July 2nd filler , filled at TSC still waiting. Also do you know if your name check was cleared.
2011 Ombre Hair
bitu72
09-18 04:10 PM
email me at billrider321@yahoo.com as i do lot of it.
more...
nousername
11-23 05:06 PM
I have used remit2india and they do not give good rate.. They will offer you free calling card, etc.. but their rate sucks. I have used Citi also and they are same.. I actually found my bank to give best rate via wire transfer.
Wellsfargo has some understanding with ICICI and they only charge $5 per wire transfer if you are sending the money to an ICICI account in India. Otherwise they charge $20-$25 but give best rate..
Have anyone tried xoom.com or remit2india ?
Wellsfargo has some understanding with ICICI and they only charge $5 per wire transfer if you are sending the money to an ICICI account in India. Otherwise they charge $20-$25 but give best rate..
Have anyone tried xoom.com or remit2india ?
calboy78
11-10 03:02 PM
I will send email(s) to consulates and ministry of affairs UNTIL they hear us. They can't take us for granted and create the rules like they want for different consulates.
PS: I got mine renewed (10 yr validity) this year from SFO, with expired visa, without a problem.
PS: I got mine renewed (10 yr validity) this year from SFO, with expired visa, without a problem.
more...
mnq1979
06-26 09:39 AM
I jst got an update on my and my wife I-485; i am not sure what it is about as i have not received the RFE yet.....but i think they are asking for our BC as we did not provide them when we applied for I-485;
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
2010 images jessica alba new hair
greensignal
08-22 11:06 AM
You applied at the right service center TSC. I also live in NC and applied on July 25th at TSC and got the Receipt notices.
Did you check the processing dates for TSC for I765? I think currently they are processing applications applied before April 16, 2008.
So dont worry.. But you may call TSC Service center for any status
Did you check the processing dates for TSC for I765? I think currently they are processing applications applied before April 16, 2008.
So dont worry.. But you may call TSC Service center for any status
more...
tnite
08-10 11:32 AM
any CT members coming along with you.. ?
None of them have PM'd or called me so far.
None of them have PM'd or called me so far.
hair Jessica Simpson, 2006
arnet
09-15 01:18 PM
if they take the bill, they might listen to us and include our provisions in this bill because our provisions are part of the CIR bill which they passed it.
but they will make changes to 'secure act' and pass it in such a way it goes to conference committee (big chance of this going because senate wants 370 miles fence, house wants 700miles) and they wont have time for that committee now, so they will work on it next yr after elections. again after elections, it is diff game as you said. anyhow we caught in the middle of their game.
Now that the "Secure Fence Act" has been approved in the house, will senate take on this bill and pass its own version? Has there been any indication at all from the senate leadership that they intend to pass something similar and if so, when? The reason I ask is that I strongly believe that if this bill were to taken on by the senate then our friendly senators like Specter might include some relief for us. This is the only chance I can see this year and next year is a whole different ball game.
but they will make changes to 'secure act' and pass it in such a way it goes to conference committee (big chance of this going because senate wants 370 miles fence, house wants 700miles) and they wont have time for that committee now, so they will work on it next yr after elections. again after elections, it is diff game as you said. anyhow we caught in the middle of their game.
Now that the "Secure Fence Act" has been approved in the house, will senate take on this bill and pass its own version? Has there been any indication at all from the senate leadership that they intend to pass something similar and if so, when? The reason I ask is that I strongly believe that if this bill were to taken on by the senate then our friendly senators like Specter might include some relief for us. This is the only chance I can see this year and next year is a whole different ball game.
more...
sidm
03-29 07:34 PM
^^Who do we contact ....?
Anyways, it looks like it will be very difficult to do this for people who were forced back into Universities - to do this the current I-20 must be invalidated and a new one issued by the original institution from which the candidate graduated and got the OPT
Any ideas....?:confused:
Anyway there still might be some hope in the H1 lottery....
Anyways, it looks like it will be very difficult to do this for people who were forced back into Universities - to do this the current I-20 must be invalidated and a new one issued by the original institution from which the candidate graduated and got the OPT
Any ideas....?:confused:
Anyway there still might be some hope in the H1 lottery....
hot jessica alba ombre hair.
rockstart
09-08 10:48 AM
I tried and it worked. First time the call did not go through but second time it worked. Thanks for the info. Free is always sweet.
more...
house Jessica Alba With Classy Quiff
gcwanted101
09-02 10:43 AM
Did any one(who have not applied 485 yet) got their 140 Approved copy by FOIA request? :confused:
tattoo Ombre hair (which to you and
desi3933
03-03 12:42 PM
LC approved in 2006, can I still apply for I-140?
No.
No.
more...
pictures girlfriend jessica alba ombre
pointlesswait
02-13 01:10 PM
> American Dream or Pipe Dream!!!
;-)
;-)
dresses 2010 Jessica Alba Hair Colour
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
makeup jessica biel hair color ombre.
Saralayar
03-18 05:11 PM
there is no status called 'EAD' .. it is AOS/I-485 which gives the status. EAD just gives you work authorization. Probably the person who you talked to didn't have much idea about immigration.
FYI, I just got H4 extension for my wife (she got her SSN after showing her EAD few months back). So when you say that , getting SSN automatically changes status, is incorrect. What changes the status is if your spouse starts WORKING using EAD.. then she forgoes her H4 status and switches to AOS/485.
You are correct. Getting a SSN with EAD has nothing to do with H4.
FYI, I just got H4 extension for my wife (she got her SSN after showing her EAD few months back). So when you say that , getting SSN automatically changes status, is incorrect. What changes the status is if your spouse starts WORKING using EAD.. then she forgoes her H4 status and switches to AOS/485.
You are correct. Getting a SSN with EAD has nothing to do with H4.
girlfriend I really like Jessica Alba#39;s
singhsa3
07-11 10:34 PM
Hi Guys,
Based on some recommendations, I have put together the enclosed pamplet.
I am NOT suggesting that this is the pamplet we should use but it could be a starting point. We need to generate more ideas like this to keep momentum going.
http://www.geocities.com/singhsa3/Ghandhigiri.doc
Take a look at it and make suggestions
Based on some recommendations, I have put together the enclosed pamplet.
I am NOT suggesting that this is the pamplet we should use but it could be a starting point. We need to generate more ideas like this to keep momentum going.
http://www.geocities.com/singhsa3/Ghandhigiri.doc
Take a look at it and make suggestions
hairstyles tattoo Jessica Marie Alba
rajmehrotra
07-09 02:02 PM
I understand, but don't. The possibility of you getting hurt in some way if he reciprocates in kind is much higher. Steel yourself, and move on...
buehler
06-03 09:57 AM
The link says all the majors considered as STEM. If you choose Browse by STEM discipline - those are the STEM disciplines..
Read carefully. It states that those are the occupations that might require a degree from those STEM Disciplines. For e.g. If you see under Life Sciences, it states that Farmers might require a degree in Life Sciences.
Read carefully. It states that those are the occupations that might require a degree from those STEM Disciplines. For e.g. If you see under Life Sciences, it states that Farmers might require a degree in Life Sciences.
frostrated
04-09 04:49 PM
i would say efile. You will get the file number immediately as opposed to the mai taking a couple of days to travel and then getting processed into the system. Ultimately, there might be a difference of upto 7 days between case numbers. The earlier your case number, the more advanageous your position will be.
Just my 2 cents.
Just my 2 cents.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий