rkthoka
06-11 03:45 PM
Hi
My Mother in law appeared at hyderabad US consulate and IO told her that she got visa but asked her to come up with new passport, becoz some letters in her current passort has faded out.
Is this happend with any one? and what we do in this situation after getting new passport?
I mean do we need another appointment or just go with new passport and drop?
Please through some thouts.
Regards,
Krishna.
My Mother in law appeared at hyderabad US consulate and IO told her that she got visa but asked her to come up with new passport, becoz some letters in her current passort has faded out.
Is this happend with any one? and what we do in this situation after getting new passport?
I mean do we need another appointment or just go with new passport and drop?
Please through some thouts.
Regards,
Krishna.
wallpaper WindowsXP Wallpaper.jpg
Kmanne
03-05 03:10 AM
Hi,
My visa expires in May 2009. I applied for OPT and starting date will be from June 1st 2009. I want to go to India in the last quarter of 2009. How do I get a valid visa. Should I get a new F1 Visa? Please help me..
My visa expires in May 2009. I applied for OPT and starting date will be from June 1st 2009. I want to go to India in the last quarter of 2009. How do I get a valid visa. Should I get a new F1 Visa? Please help me..
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
2011 animated wallpaper for xp
ramprasad_r
02-03 12:34 PM
Hello All,
I had attended H1 interview in last week of Nov 2007. I had got 221g BLUE form to submit additional documents from Petitioner.
I submitted all documents through VFS drop box in last week of Jan 2008. Does anyone has any idea within how many weeks time we will get some response from Chennai consulate?
I was not asked to submit passport and hence I havent submitted passport.
I appreciate any inputs from any one.
Regards,
Ram
I had attended H1 interview in last week of Nov 2007. I had got 221g BLUE form to submit additional documents from Petitioner.
I submitted all documents through VFS drop box in last week of Jan 2008. Does anyone has any idea within how many weeks time we will get some response from Chennai consulate?
I was not asked to submit passport and hence I havent submitted passport.
I appreciate any inputs from any one.
Regards,
Ram
more...
coldcloud
07-21 10:46 PM
This might be little bit old, but I dont remember seeing a post on this. Employment-based immigrant visa fees almost doubled, Old fees $ 355, new fees $ 720 from July 13th. Does this mean USCIS will open the gates in Sept bulletin [to be released in August]?
New Consular Fees (http://travel.state.gov/news/news_5078.html)
New Consular Fees (http://travel.state.gov/news/news_5078.html)
brick2006
06-29 10:26 AM
Anyone know of any good GC lawyers in Chicago Land area...
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
more...
admin
01-27 01:49 PM
Immigration Voice Web Fax is live. You can now send faxes to highlight your issues, ask for meetings and so on. Currently there are only 3 faxes but we will be introducing many more over the coming days. This is a very easy way for all affected people to get involved in this effort. Please start sending those faxes and do spread the word to your friends and families.
In the interest of effectiveness and cost, users will be able to send each fax to only 3 lawmakers( their 2 senators and one congressman). Also to increase the efficiency of the faxes, each user can send only one fax per day.
To access the Web Fax feature got the Immigration Voice home page and click on Web Fax from the left hand side links.
Raise your voice and be heard.
-admin
In the interest of effectiveness and cost, users will be able to send each fax to only 3 lawmakers( their 2 senators and one congressman). Also to increase the efficiency of the faxes, each user can send only one fax per day.
To access the Web Fax feature got the Immigration Voice home page and click on Web Fax from the left hand side links.
Raise your voice and be heard.
-admin
2010 wallpapers windows xp.
babugc40
03-19 07:34 PM
I was working with company A and got approved I140(1 year back) after that I moved to company B using approved I140 and got 3 yrs H1B extension.After that during July,07 period I requested company A to apply EAD and i485(Company A mentioned as future employment).Now I am still with company B.
But now Company A asking me to come back.Since I have everything approved (i140) except i485(pending) do I need to go back to company A?
If I do not go to company A,can he cancel approved I140 ?
Need help/suggestion .
Thanks
But now Company A asking me to come back.Since I have everything approved (i140) except i485(pending) do I need to go back to company A?
If I do not go to company A,can he cancel approved I140 ?
Need help/suggestion .
Thanks
more...
GWB
05-21 05:07 AM
Sorry, I can't get it to post any other way for sum reason... :s
hair Windows 7 Wallpapers also
raj2007
02-07 11:32 PM
Yes:D
more...
bobbypavan
03-18 10:22 PM
My company has been going through layoffs for the past 3 quarters and are unable to start my GC process. I believe they have to wait for 6 months before they go forward and apply. I am talking about a big company with different departments like operations, marketing and most of the layoffs are happening in these, but recruitment is active in IT. They are regularly recruiting new resources and increasing the head count.
I have following questions:
1) Can my company show that the layoffs are happening in different depts and go ahead and process my GC?
2) What is the risk in doing so.
3) Anyone experiencing a similar situation and could successfully get their GC process started and have approved labor/I140?
Thanks for your suggestions.
I have following questions:
1) Can my company show that the layoffs are happening in different depts and go ahead and process my GC?
2) What is the risk in doing so.
3) Anyone experiencing a similar situation and could successfully get their GC process started and have approved labor/I140?
Thanks for your suggestions.
hot windows xp wallpaper.
Green.Tech
08-22 09:38 AM
Is this what you are looking for pappu?
https://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/forms/fts_wh4.htm
https://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/forms/fts_wh4.htm
more...
house hair 3d windows xp wallpaper
DoubleN
06-28 02:27 PM
I believe you should inform about the current status of your wife.
tattoo your windows XP Wallpaper
gcfriend65
11-24 12:45 AM
Guys, I had two simple questions...
1. How many days before, can you apply for a renewal of EAD card before the expiration of the first one?
2. If wife gets an EAD card, is it possible to apply for a social security number without employment?
1. How many days before, can you apply for a renewal of EAD card before the expiration of the first one?
2. If wife gets an EAD card, is it possible to apply for a social security number without employment?
more...
pictures hair windows wallpapers xp.
ivgclive
09-21 12:17 PM
D
dresses Category :: Windows Wallpaper
bond65
05-24 01:47 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
makeup use Windows DreamScene
surabhi
10-24 05:01 PM
Hi
I am July 2 Filer and got the checks cashed on October 11. The USCIS mailed receipts on October 15 and I received them on October 18th.
Because of high speed winds, my mail box got opened ( unsecured on a single family home) and much of the mail got swept away. I scouted the neighbourhood and recovered all but one receipt notice.
One doubt nagging me is if I had lost any FP notice on that day.
What has been the general wait time to get FP notices from the day the checks were cashed / receipts receieved ? I know it depends on how busy the ASCs are, so particularly interested hearing from Chicago area.
Is there anything I can do from my side to know if I indeed got a FP notice?
Thanks
I am July 2 Filer and got the checks cashed on October 11. The USCIS mailed receipts on October 15 and I received them on October 18th.
Because of high speed winds, my mail box got opened ( unsecured on a single family home) and much of the mail got swept away. I scouted the neighbourhood and recovered all but one receipt notice.
One doubt nagging me is if I had lost any FP notice on that day.
What has been the general wait time to get FP notices from the day the checks were cashed / receipts receieved ? I know it depends on how busy the ASCs are, so particularly interested hearing from Chicago area.
Is there anything I can do from my side to know if I indeed got a FP notice?
Thanks
girlfriend xp black wallpaper. windows xp
uumapathi
08-06 12:06 PM
My company uses Maiona and Maiona PC in Boston, they are great.
hairstyles WINDOWS XP WALLPAPER
Blog Feeds
02-17 09:20 AM
PBS launched a wonderful new series this evening entitled Faces of America which examines the family history of 12 notable figures in contemporary America. The figures profiled are diverse and include Dr. Mehmet Oz, Meryl Street, Kristi Yamaguchi, Malcolm Gladwell Stephen Colbert and Yo-Yo Ma. I was pleased to see Mike Nichols on the list. Nichols and his family fled Germany for the United States at the age of seven in 1939 just as the horrors of the Nazis were beginning to accelerate. He's always been a favorite of mine from his days as half of a comic duo with...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/immigrant-of-the-day-mike-nichols-director.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/immigrant-of-the-day-mike-nichols-director.html)
cygent
08-04 09:14 PM
Hi SunnySurya,
Approximate statistics here ---> http://immigrationwatch.com/router.jsp?action=list_stat&table_name=IMMI_PS_LINI485&year=2007
Approximate statistics here ---> http://immigrationwatch.com/router.jsp?action=list_stat&table_name=IMMI_PS_LINI485&year=2007
lost_angeles
06-17 12:45 AM
I am getting ready to file for my 485. I have a problem, and I am not sure how to go about it --
My wife's birth certificate has her name listed differently than it is. The birth certificate has a temporary/pet name. Is there anything I can do now, in next 14 days, before I can file for 485? Will any kind of affidavit help?
Appreciate all your suggestions.
My wife's birth certificate has her name listed differently than it is. The birth certificate has a temporary/pet name. Is there anything I can do now, in next 14 days, before I can file for 485? Will any kind of affidavit help?
Appreciate all your suggestions.
No comments:
Post a Comment