tcsonly
07-17 04:05 PM
We received our H1B renewal approvals last week, and noticed on my wife's 797A that class type mentioned as H1B for the petition type I-539. It's supposed to be H4.
I informed our attorney and she emailed CSC about the same.
Has any one come across a similar thing ?
-C.
I informed our attorney and she emailed CSC about the same.
Has any one come across a similar thing ?
-C.
wallpaper inspired logos submitted
countdrak
03-31 05:28 PM
My cousin from India has a BCOM degree and he is filing for a H1 B visa.
He just heard from his lawyer 2 days ago that his credit evaluation was needed and he had to get experience letters for atleast 3 years of work ex.
He gave it to his lawyer and now they tell him that they will submit his application without the evaluation! They said that once an inquiry comes if it even does then we will submit the evaluation.
Is that ok??? or should he be submitting the evaluation with the application. I am concerned but I guess it too late now.
Thanks for the help.
He just heard from his lawyer 2 days ago that his credit evaluation was needed and he had to get experience letters for atleast 3 years of work ex.
He gave it to his lawyer and now they tell him that they will submit his application without the evaluation! They said that once an inquiry comes if it even does then we will submit the evaluation.
Is that ok??? or should he be submitting the evaluation with the application. I am concerned but I guess it too late now.
Thanks for the help.
green.card
12-10 09:59 PM
Guys,
Please help me...I do not have much knowledge about GC process. I am working on H1B visa from last 3 years with my current employer and they are ready to apply for GC but, I know that for GC in the same position I cannot use the experience gained during past 3 years. But if I apply for GC for the next level (as GC is for future employment) with the current experience and keep working in my current role until my GC is approved, do you guys see any problem with that? GC approval will easily take 4-5 years and during this time I can keep working in my current position and once GC is approved I can switch to the next level which is kind of promotion.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
Please help me...I do not have much knowledge about GC process. I am working on H1B visa from last 3 years with my current employer and they are ready to apply for GC but, I know that for GC in the same position I cannot use the experience gained during past 3 years. But if I apply for GC for the next level (as GC is for future employment) with the current experience and keep working in my current role until my GC is approved, do you guys see any problem with that? GC approval will easily take 4-5 years and during this time I can keep working in my current position and once GC is approved I can switch to the next level which is kind of promotion.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
2011 We hope to establish a long
frostrated
06-18 02:06 PM
Hi
Do you know who can apply for the Prevailing Wage Determination
Is it me or my employer or my lawyer
and what forms other that 9141 need to be filled.
thanks
Vivek
the lawyer does that
Do you know who can apply for the Prevailing Wage Determination
Is it me or my employer or my lawyer
and what forms other that 9141 need to be filled.
thanks
Vivek
the lawyer does that
more...
amicable
07-18 08:50 PM
Hi friends
I am not sure if I am posting it in the right forum. So please excuse me if not. My cousin have some immigration case going on in San antonia, Texas court. She lives in California. Her court date is on 30th July in texas. I need help to find a good immigration lawyer for her. Could you guys please suggest me immgration lawyer (if possible Indian) there, so that I could contact asap. TIA.
I am not sure if I am posting it in the right forum. So please excuse me if not. My cousin have some immigration case going on in San antonia, Texas court. She lives in California. Her court date is on 30th July in texas. I need help to find a good immigration lawyer for her. Could you guys please suggest me immgration lawyer (if possible Indian) there, so that I could contact asap. TIA.
IQAndreas
11-10 01:20 PM
Just found this extension a few seconds ago for those (including me) who haven't mastered gradients or partially alpha'd parts of an image, and who are too cheap to buy Photoshop and instead use Paint.net
http://paintdotnet.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=28865
EDIT: Never mind. It was more limited than it looked. It only allows you to add text, and doesn't separate each element into individual layers.
http://paintdotnet.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=28865
EDIT: Never mind. It was more limited than it looked. It only allows you to add text, and doesn't separate each element into individual layers.
more...
hopelessGC
08-10 01:58 PM
Hi all,
I need some good advice and facts...
My friend's H1-B extension is approved but the stamping (Mumbai consulate) might get denied due to a previous (dismissed) charge for driving with suspended license.
What are the options after that? Can he re-apply for the visa stamping again using the same H1-B approval petition? Can we appeal the decision since it document clearly states that the fine was paid?
Please advise.
I need some good advice and facts...
My friend's H1-B extension is approved but the stamping (Mumbai consulate) might get denied due to a previous (dismissed) charge for driving with suspended license.
What are the options after that? Can he re-apply for the visa stamping again using the same H1-B approval petition? Can we appeal the decision since it document clearly states that the fine was paid?
Please advise.
2010 size: Customized logos,colors
smsrao
04-17 08:10 PM
When I click the link above, I get page cannot be found. can you please tell us what is the issue regarding this???
more...
omsakthi
02-12 08:35 PM
Dear Attorneys, Some one could you please reply.
THanks,
omsakthi.
THanks,
omsakthi.
hair size: Customized logos,colors
buehler
06-19 03:58 PM
There is no such deadline. But it would do you good to file them before July 31st or other wise it might retrogress.
more...
greencard_fever
02-05 03:18 PM
I had the soft LUD on my I129 which was approved in Nov 2007.
hot of Rossi#39;s new logos and
willigetgc?
10-27 09:18 AM
Our problems cannot be solved by one party alone - whether they have the majority or not! There are too many interested (opposing) parties. It does not matter which party gets the control, unless we have bipartisanship on our issues. We, as the affected group needs to do everything we can to get the congressmen to reach across the aisle..........
wishful thinking? ........... what other choice do we have?
wishful thinking? ........... what other choice do we have?
more...
house real estate logos free.
morchu
05-02 08:37 PM
Depends....
Does the husband has a pending LC / I140 / I485? If yes, the dates matters.
What was the reason for denial of his H1?
My friend is on H1 and her husband's H1 extension denied after 6 th year.Can she add her husband to her H1?
Can a person stay in USA on H category continuosly more than 6 year??
Please respond immediately
Does the husband has a pending LC / I140 / I485? If yes, the dates matters.
What was the reason for denial of his H1?
My friend is on H1 and her husband's H1 extension denied after 6 th year.Can she add her husband to her H1?
Can a person stay in USA on H category continuosly more than 6 year??
Please respond immediately
tattoo Hope you enjoy my first vid in
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
more...
pictures conventional sport logos
vaccine
02-07 09:13 AM
Chicago to Delhi
yes we came back on new year and flight was very good, nice food and staff was really cooperative. At POE it took us 2 min to get out of immigration and custom check. Officers were polite and nice. We both used AP and no questions were asked. I would highly recommond this flight.
yes we came back on new year and flight was very good, nice food and staff was really cooperative. At POE it took us 2 min to get out of immigration and custom check. Officers were polite and nice. We both used AP and no questions were asked. I would highly recommond this flight.
dresses real estate logos free. real
Blog Feeds
09-25 10:10 AM
VIA AILA
USCIS has informally advised AILA that it will prioritize the adjudication of H-1B change of status cases for F-1 cap-gap students who are otherwise prohibited from continuing employment after September 30. AILA Liaison has been coordinating with USCIS to help achieve this outcome. USCIS has the means to independently verify these cases.
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/09/24/uscis-will-provide-priority-adjudication-of-h1b-capgap-cases.aspx?ref=rss)
USCIS has informally advised AILA that it will prioritize the adjudication of H-1B change of status cases for F-1 cap-gap students who are otherwise prohibited from continuing employment after September 30. AILA Liaison has been coordinating with USCIS to help achieve this outcome. USCIS has the means to independently verify these cases.
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/09/24/uscis-will-provide-priority-adjudication-of-h1b-capgap-cases.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
makeup Logos are seen in front of
muralip
07-11 09:28 AM
My attorney want's to file my I-485 now to have a receipt that it is filed and sent back by USCIS. This shows up that I was capable of filing in July but I could not because USCIS did not accept on the last minute.
The Idea behind is that it will give advantage to my application if AILF wins the case.
Please let me know is this a good thing to do at this stage.
The Idea behind is that it will give advantage to my application if AILF wins the case.
Please let me know is this a good thing to do at this stage.
girlfriend Volunteering ship is changing
Blog Feeds
08-03 07:30 PM
It takes a lot of razzle dazzle for a state attorney general to make national headlines on a regular basis, but Virginia Attorney Generaly Ken Cuccinelli is doing his best. His latest attention-grab is his issuing an opinion yesterday that law enforcement officers in the state can ask anyone in the state they stop for another reason about their immigration status. He draws an odd distinction - that officers have the discretion to ask or not ask and are not required to do so. This just seems to make racial profiling even more likely and doesn't at all address the...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/virginia-ag-thumbs-nose-at-arizona.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/virginia-ag-thumbs-nose-at-arizona.html)
hairstyles logos of cars brands.
INSpector
09-14 05:34 PM
Guys
what is the right address to submit the I485 / EAD and AP using Fedex and fill it in Nebraska?
My attorney submitted my paperwork to:
850 S Street POBOX 87845 ?
I'm confused becase in the CIS site give the address in parentesis mention to write down the right POBOX.
What if she maid a mistake and send the paperwork to POBOX 87485?
PS.
I will be in DC, and we have rented a bus departing from wallace NC monday at 12:00hrs I still have sits available, we will drive to rRaleigh, the Virginia then DC
what is the right address to submit the I485 / EAD and AP using Fedex and fill it in Nebraska?
My attorney submitted my paperwork to:
850 S Street POBOX 87845 ?
I'm confused becase in the CIS site give the address in parentesis mention to write down the right POBOX.
What if she maid a mistake and send the paperwork to POBOX 87485?
PS.
I will be in DC, and we have rented a bus departing from wallace NC monday at 12:00hrs I still have sits available, we will drive to rRaleigh, the Virginia then DC
sundarpn
07-21 10:59 PM
When we file 485 AOS along with EAD & APL, these are three seperate forms, so we get three seperate receipt numbers?
is that correct?
is that correct?
immmj
01-08 02:32 AM
H1 (140 approved;485 pending +180 days) got laid off; For H4 (not added into green card application yet), any practical suggestion so that H4 can stay in US.
No comments:
Post a Comment