Raji09
07-09 07:19 PM
Can you please explain why it is restrictive compared to H1B?
Are you telling it because of 2 year home residency rule and getting waivers?
I am thinking of it because of my job continuation and spouse and family. If there is any alternative please suggest.
Thank you
Are you telling it because of 2 year home residency rule and getting waivers?
I am thinking of it because of my job continuation and spouse and family. If there is any alternative please suggest.
Thank you
wallpaper USA-Printables: Gold Panning
quizzer
09-11 01:25 PM
What all information can be verified during this biometrics appointment � Full Name (no spelling mistake), Address �on 485, EAD and AP???
Blog Feeds
03-05 02:00 PM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiciwG4S63P7eI-dxQptXxtxktyHUxndzwLAWkfIpVabya7UB6sbRTRixGvyxumywSk9HLgpXAcajOUr8i1EhRQNQfheYbowsBq7VJHkV9Cp67RK6UhQIEQITHJWehpve9tLRaLLL7z1nLW/s200/Snoop+Dogg.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiciwG4S63P7eI-dxQptXxtxktyHUxndzwLAWkfIpVabya7UB6sbRTRixGvyxumywSk9HLgpXAcajOUr8i1EhRQNQfheYbowsBq7VJHkV9Cp67RK6UhQIEQITHJWehpve9tLRaLLL7z1nLW/s1600-h/Snoop+Dogg.jpg)
BBC News - Rapper Snoop Dogg wins UK immigration fight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8551188.stm)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-8620187598579326144?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/03/bbc-news-rapper-snoop-dogg-wins-uk.html)
BBC News - Rapper Snoop Dogg wins UK immigration fight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8551188.stm)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-8620187598579326144?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/03/bbc-news-rapper-snoop-dogg-wins-uk.html)
2011 In 1849 California gold rush.
ksvreg
04-12 02:42 PM
I was keep observing the PERM approval rate trend for the past one year. Approval rate is very slow. But it is suddently jumped since last month. Looks like it is a good time to start filing another labor. I am in the same boat. Trying for a new employer for EB2.
more...
sagar770
08-02 10:28 AM
Hello,
I was born in Canada and moved to the U.S. when I was 8 years old. I was naturalized when I was 18 (4 years ago). I heard that when naturalized in the U.S, my Canadian citizenship was not lost (I never filed any paperwork with the Canadian government stating I wanted to give up my Canadian citizenship either). Is this true?
If so, can I apply for a Canadian passport? Should I do this? Are there any responsibilities/problems/repercussions that could occur if I do this?
Thanks in advance for any help!
I was born in Canada and moved to the U.S. when I was 8 years old. I was naturalized when I was 18 (4 years ago). I heard that when naturalized in the U.S, my Canadian citizenship was not lost (I never filed any paperwork with the Canadian government stating I wanted to give up my Canadian citizenship either). Is this true?
If so, can I apply for a Canadian passport? Should I do this? Are there any responsibilities/problems/repercussions that could occur if I do this?
Thanks in advance for any help!
GCard_Dream
04-11 12:56 PM
I have been working in DFT/Test field for few years now and it appears that my current group is leaning more and more towards Test Development for SOCs and less in DFT work. I really would like to pursue DFT as a career and have been looking for a job in DFT field. Not only that, moving to a newer company might help me in getting the green card faster; possibly.
Is anyone here working in the DFT field? If so, do you know of any job openings in your group or anywhere else for that matter?
Any help will be very much appreciated.
Is anyone here working in the DFT field? If so, do you know of any job openings in your group or anywhere else for that matter?
Any help will be very much appreciated.
more...
kanyewest
04-20 02:28 PM
I was on H1B until Feb 2009 and I applied for COS to H4 in Feb 2009. USCIS has received my COS application, and it is still pending with USCIS for 2 months now.
1. Can a new employer apply for a new cap-exempt H1B for me (technically a transfer, as I was on H1B for 2 years before)?
2. In that case, do I need to submit paystubs and W2s from when I last held H1B status?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Note: I did not see any posts related to this particular scenario, hence had to create a new thread.
1. Can a new employer apply for a new cap-exempt H1B for me (technically a transfer, as I was on H1B for 2 years before)?
2. In that case, do I need to submit paystubs and W2s from when I last held H1B status?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Note: I did not see any posts related to this particular scenario, hence had to create a new thread.
2010 during the 1849 Gold Rush
ragz4u
02-19 05:23 AM
Have to admire the unity among the illegal aliens! After the rallies in DC and Philadelphia, they have joined hands again and had arranged rallies in Las Vegas http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4522244
and Grand Rapids, MI http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=23798&template=breakout_local.html
We are 100% legal aliens and it is 100% legal to hold a peaceful rally. Please support IV in holding a rally in DC on March 13th. Details can be found on this thread http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=143
and Grand Rapids, MI http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=23798&template=breakout_local.html
We are 100% legal aliens and it is 100% legal to hold a peaceful rally. Please support IV in holding a rally in DC on March 13th. Details can be found on this thread http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=143
more...
Dhundhun
10-14 02:49 AM
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 1 May 2002 1 May 2002
FX 15 July 2001 15 July 2001
F2A 8 Februrary 2004 8 February 2004
F2B 15 January 2000 15 January 2000
F3 1 July 2000 1 July 2000
F4 22 July 1997 15 November 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 June 2003 Current
E3 1 October 2001 1 May 2005
EW 15 Janurary 2003 15 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
F1 1 May 2002 1 May 2002
FX 15 July 2001 15 July 2001
F2A 8 Februrary 2004 8 February 2004
F2B 15 January 2000 15 January 2000
F3 1 July 2000 1 July 2000
F4 22 July 1997 15 November 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 June 2003 Current
E3 1 October 2001 1 May 2005
EW 15 Janurary 2003 15 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
hair Kristiana stars in her first movie about a 1849 California Gold Rush person
pappu
06-10 12:42 PM
This will be posted soon on USCIS website and made public
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/images/a/af/CIS_OMBUDSMAN_RECOMMENDATION_REGARDING_THE_PROCESS ING_OF_WAIVERS_OF_INADMISSIBILITY.pdf
Please go through this document (those interested) and post your comments. We will collect the analysis and comments and inform IV's feedback to USCIS.
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/images/a/af/CIS_OMBUDSMAN_RECOMMENDATION_REGARDING_THE_PROCESS ING_OF_WAIVERS_OF_INADMISSIBILITY.pdf
Please go through this document (those interested) and post your comments. We will collect the analysis and comments and inform IV's feedback to USCIS.
more...
Berkeleybee
04-14 11:53 AM
Do check the IV in the News link regularly, that link has been there since yesterday.
hot California Gold Rush Miners Supplies. File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick
upuaut8
10-31 02:00 AM
or using action script to place dots in a line, also works.
more...
house 2011 1849 CALIFORNIA GOLD RUSH
Administrator2
08-04 04:05 PM
Bumping this thread (on request)
tattoo 1849 california gold rush
h_shaik
10-17 12:44 PM
Bump
more...
pictures SUMMARY Sheet music, ca. 1849
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 girlfriend the California Gold Rush, 1849 gold rush tools. tattoo big
up_guy
09-21 06:37 PM
I work for a big company. Each time when I move to a new project, my company ask me to file an LCA and H-1B amendment for new project location. It takes several month to get approval until then you have wait and face all travel restrictions.
I know that several smaller companies don�t file such amendments
Does anyone who why do we have to file such amendment?
What happens if we don�t file this?
I know that several smaller companies don�t file such amendments
Does anyone who why do we have to file such amendment?
What happens if we don�t file this?
more...
makeup The second is THE GOLD RUSH by
NlBN5RdkJl6g~~0_3.JPG "2011 1849 CALIFORNIA GOLD RUSH")
newuser
10-16 10:51 PM
Local State Chapters - Please update the activities as they happen so that members get to know about them
Setraheep - Thanks for the update
Setraheep - Thanks for the update
girlfriend 1849 CALIFORNIA GOLD RUSH San
Macaca
05-19 07:30 AM
A New Reality in Washington, but Can It Last? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19assess.html) By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
hairstyles the california gold rush
saiprasad77
10-01 02:36 PM
Hi All,
We have sent AOS, EAD and AP applications for my wife and me on August 7th. So far, we have received receipt notices for EAD, AP and AOS for my wife only with Notice Date of September 17th. To my surprise the Priority Date field is left blank on all the receipt notices. Just wanted to check with others who have received their spouse's receipt notices if this is usual and nothing to worry about.
Appreciate your response.
Thanks in advance,
-Sai
We have sent AOS, EAD and AP applications for my wife and me on August 7th. So far, we have received receipt notices for EAD, AP and AOS for my wife only with Notice Date of September 17th. To my surprise the Priority Date field is left blank on all the receipt notices. Just wanted to check with others who have received their spouse's receipt notices if this is usual and nothing to worry about.
Appreciate your response.
Thanks in advance,
-Sai
Joppe
05-13 04:09 PM
Thats real nice.. and soft .. Like it :thumb:
newxyz100
07-19 03:36 PM
While filling my biographical information form (I-325a) I forgot to add one of my residential address which was in a different city where I stayed only for 2 months. I was wondering will that be a major issue?
I remember this is the address I gave when I got a job and they did a background check on me. If there are any repercussions how do I rectify the solution, can some one please respond?
:)
I remember this is the address I gave when I got a job and they did a background check on me. If there are any repercussions how do I rectify the solution, can some one please respond?
:)
No comments:
Post a Comment