gcdreamer05
08-14 01:47 PM
Hi all,
I am on h1b right now but had applied only for AP since i do not have valid stamping on my passport but have an approved renewed h1b extension valid till 2012.
My AP will be expiring coming nov 2009 and have the following questions,
1) How many days before expiry can i apply for the AP renewal. If i apply now the texas processing times for AP is around Apr 1 2009, does it mean the new AP they will provide from Aug 2009 to Aug 2010 or from my AP expiry date which is nov 2009 to nov 2010?
2) I am also thinking of applying for EAD to keep as a backup (just in case).
Can i apply EAD alone now and wait for nov to apply for AP (or should i apply both together) ?
3) If i do a paper based filing does it mean there will be no request for finger printing?
Thanks
dreamer
I am on h1b right now but had applied only for AP since i do not have valid stamping on my passport but have an approved renewed h1b extension valid till 2012.
My AP will be expiring coming nov 2009 and have the following questions,
1) How many days before expiry can i apply for the AP renewal. If i apply now the texas processing times for AP is around Apr 1 2009, does it mean the new AP they will provide from Aug 2009 to Aug 2010 or from my AP expiry date which is nov 2009 to nov 2010?
2) I am also thinking of applying for EAD to keep as a backup (just in case).
Can i apply EAD alone now and wait for nov to apply for AP (or should i apply both together) ?
3) If i do a paper based filing does it mean there will be no request for finger printing?
Thanks
dreamer
wallpaper with Black Color for Men
inalimbo
08-12 02:22 PM
Hello,
My priority date is October 2007. I got my I-140 denied , based on EB2, on the basis that the 5 years of education does not equate to the 6 years the USCIS believes is required for a Masters degree.
My lawyer got an education evaluation done and filed an appeal withing 30 days , in January 2008. The appeal has been pending since then.
I need advise on what to do next? Should I apply for another I-140? Can I somehow get the appeal decision expedited?
My priority date is October 2007. I got my I-140 denied , based on EB2, on the basis that the 5 years of education does not equate to the 6 years the USCIS believes is required for a Masters degree.
My lawyer got an education evaluation done and filed an appeal withing 30 days , in January 2008. The appeal has been pending since then.
I need advise on what to do next? Should I apply for another I-140? Can I somehow get the appeal decision expedited?
fasterthanlight�
05-12 08:04 PM
Used this tutorial (http://www.n-sane.net/tutorials/urban_decay/index.php) to create this effect. Enjoy.
2011 Black hair was cut into short
sac-r-ten
08-25 11:30 AM
Contact your state's senators.
Submit Ombudsman form 7001.
info on both things can be found by googling.
good luck.
Submit Ombudsman form 7001.
info on both things can be found by googling.
good luck.
more...
Blog Feeds
06-25 01:30 PM
One of the options the President has had on the table - one every President has - is using an administrative option to provide temporary legal status and work authorization to those in the country illegally. Rumors have been spreading within the community of antis around the country and they've gotten a handful of hardcore anti-immigrant members of Congress to send a letter warning the President to drop the idea (if indeed it was really being considered. How could President Obama do what the paralyzed Congress can't? Two options come to mind. He could look at a blanket policy using...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/republicans-fear-obama-considering-parole-option.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/republicans-fear-obama-considering-parole-option.html)
Blog Feeds
08-25 07:10 PM
USCIS updated its count of FY2011 cap-subject H-1B petitions and advanced degree cap-exempt petitions receipted. As of 8/20/10, approximately 33,900 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. USCIS has receipted 12,600 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees. This is a major jump from the last update of August 13, 2010 where only 29,700 filings were reported.
Is this trend likely to continue? We think so, expect visas to run out by the early weeks of December.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/08/h1b_visa_cap_august_25_2010_up.html)
Is this trend likely to continue? We think so, expect visas to run out by the early weeks of December.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/08/h1b_visa_cap_august_25_2010_up.html)
more...
thara
03-08 10:29 PM
I got labor cert approve on FEB10 and going to apply I-140 via preium process in Mar 15.
My Laber cert was file on April 09 and I have been paid lower than prevailing wage since the company reduce working hour and aset of company is 0
Year 2008
W2 + Net income tax return of company reach required wage
Year 2009
W2 + ballance sheet reach required wage (but net income tax return for 2009 is not availble yet)
Are they going to ask for 2009 net income tax return in March? if my company going to file tax extension this year and I also afraid that the net income in tax return may be lower than the number in balance sheet this year.
Is it posible that My case would be get approve without any RFE?
Thank you so much for your response i have been worried about my case for a while......
pls help
My Laber cert was file on April 09 and I have been paid lower than prevailing wage since the company reduce working hour and aset of company is 0
Year 2008
W2 + Net income tax return of company reach required wage
Year 2009
W2 + ballance sheet reach required wage (but net income tax return for 2009 is not availble yet)
Are they going to ask for 2009 net income tax return in March? if my company going to file tax extension this year and I also afraid that the net income in tax return may be lower than the number in balance sheet this year.
Is it posible that My case would be get approve without any RFE?
Thank you so much for your response i have been worried about my case for a while......
pls help
2010 of long hair that bobbed
travis
05-14 10:05 PM
It's nice, realy nice, I enjoyed it. (as much as one can enjoy looking at a postage stamp)
more...
badluck
07-23 02:13 PM
Not yet....take my money...USCIS
hair Short hair styles,Short
LOL123
11-24 09:48 AM
We filed our 485 on July 2nd 2007 at Nebraska office � EB3 � July 7, 2001
- The case was shifted to Texas and we received notices from Texas office with receipt date of August 27.
- Our date is now current however processing at Texas is still stuck at June 27, 2007.
- Does this mean our RD is now 08/27/07 even though it was recd. at Nebraska on 07/02/07??
- The case was shifted to Texas and we received notices from Texas office with receipt date of August 27.
- Our date is now current however processing at Texas is still stuck at June 27, 2007.
- Does this mean our RD is now 08/27/07 even though it was recd. at Nebraska on 07/02/07??
more...
nfinity
04-16 03:40 PM
Hello Attorneys,
My company recently moved offices to a new location just a few miles from the old location. Its in an adjacent county but with in the same state. We moved from Northbrook, IL to Deerfield IL, does this warrant a change in LCA/H1B?
Please advise.
Thanks
My company recently moved offices to a new location just a few miles from the old location. Its in an adjacent county but with in the same state. We moved from Northbrook, IL to Deerfield IL, does this warrant a change in LCA/H1B?
Please advise.
Thanks
hot Tags: Black Hairstyle, Black
angry.coconut
October 17th, 2009, 05:11 PM
i have it on Nikon mount, and one of the samples i tested had a back focus issue. i just bought the one that didnt. Sigma is real good at fixing/replacing defective lenses
more...
house Trend man lack hair style4
rodnyb
11-27 04:04 PM
I was searching on all programmer salary's on SalaryList.com (http://salarylist.com), it looks like we are much higher than the other majors, business analyst, finance analyst. So if I want to do AC21, in current condition, should I keep same salary? Several companies I talk to can only match now
tattoo Also this short haircuts its a
solaris27
03-12 08:52 AM
Congratulations
more...
pictures 2010 short hair styles men
Ann Ruben
01-20 08:50 AM
An I-140 petition filed for you by your current employer will have no impact on the pending I-140 appeal filed by your future employer.
dresses Short Black Hair Men.
ShinX001
03-18 08:42 AM
So I am trying to create an ellipse which has a few bumps in its shape(path),
I want to be able to dynamically create new shapes that have a different
path each time a new one is created. Any one have any idea about how
to go abotu the concept for this?
Dont need code just need ideas on best ways to go about this.
Thanks in advanced.... :mario:
I want to be able to dynamically create new shapes that have a different
path each time a new one is created. Any one have any idea about how
to go abotu the concept for this?
Dont need code just need ideas on best ways to go about this.
Thanks in advanced.... :mario:
more...
makeup are done by lack men.
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
girlfriend Short Black Hair Men. men
sujit_help
02-01 01:16 PM
My PERM was filed in Dec, 2006 and was denied on April, 2007. As per my employer's lawyer it was erroneously denied by DOL. The lawer has received the denial letter but no reason was stated. He was keep on follwing up with DOL but no answers. On Aug 2007, lawyer was followed up again directly with the DOL office in Atlanta , with the liaison at the American Immigration Lawyer's Association and also it was sent to the congressional office. Through Senetor we came to know that there was typo in the date field. The lawer is persuing to get the denal letter again with reason so that we can appeal. But we have 10% chance to get the another deial letter. Now lawer is asking for filling a new PERM. In between I lost 8 months and now I'm running out time. My 6th year is expiring on Sept08. Just incase if we din't get denial letter and file the new PERM on Mrach can we get the 7th year extension ? (We will show all the documents etc for previos denail case and there was no reason in denail letter. PLEASE HELP
hairstyles Mr. McCogg is a male, lack,
Dhundhun
11-01 11:55 PM
My son came to USA on H4 Visa. He completed his studies on F1 Visa and worked for some time on H1B Visa.
Then he went to Canada for higher studies. He holds Canada PR.
I am in US. If I apply for his I 130, would there be probem him visiting US on B2 Visa.
Thanks
Then he went to Canada for higher studies. He holds Canada PR.
I am in US. If I apply for his I 130, would there be probem him visiting US on B2 Visa.
Thanks
fromnaija
06-23 12:49 PM
Yes you should furnish this info. One of the forms asks for details of previous marriages which you should provide. I think you will also need to provide your divorce decree. Providing the information does not impact your application one way or the other.
i am filling my 485 form, i was a divorcee back in india and later came here and got married here.do i have to furnish all the details in the form and give the documents?
what will be the impact of this info?
please help?
i am filling my 485 form, i was a divorcee back in india and later came here and got married here.do i have to furnish all the details in the form and give the documents?
what will be the impact of this info?
please help?
Steve Mitchell
November 1st, 2005, 01:08 AM
Nikon's very competitive price point on the 10.2 MP D200 (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/2003) ($1,849) will definitely test Canon's bet on the full frame and much more expensive 5D. Read about the new D200 here (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/2003). It should also hasten an announcement to a succesor to the 20D.
No comments:
Post a Comment