sundarpn
07-24 10:31 AM
Folks,
When an h1b transfer via regualr processing (california center) is pending...and say the person gets fired /layed off etc....
Can another h1b transfer be done with just the recepit notice and previous I-797?
What's the risk? Some companies are not willing to do premium processing even if the candidate is ready to pay the premium process fee.
When an h1b transfer via regualr processing (california center) is pending...and say the person gets fired /layed off etc....
Can another h1b transfer be done with just the recepit notice and previous I-797?
What's the risk? Some companies are not willing to do premium processing even if the candidate is ready to pay the premium process fee.
wallpaper Medium Length Hairstyles With
shaji_p_j
01-22 01:48 PM
I am working on my H1B and on I-140 approved Stage. At the same time I have applied for I-485 as Derivative applicant on my wife's application and also got the Advanace Parol.
If I use the AP (obtained based on wife's application) will my H1B got invalidated? My intention is keep my H1B and to avoid the H1B stamping.
Thanks
If I use the AP (obtained based on wife's application) will my H1B got invalidated? My intention is keep my H1B and to avoid the H1B stamping.
Thanks
black_logs
01-22 04:36 PM
People from Washington state please sign up here
2011 Sally Field#39;s Bangs and Layers
eb3_nepa
05-15 11:37 AM
Hey Folks is the Senate poised to take the CIR today afternoon? Any news/updates on that?
more...
gcretroiv
07-02 02:00 PM
Is core group out of mind...Sueing will waste our funds..
Please use this money for constructive tasks.
Since first day, if u have tried to make I485 filing w/o priority date current..
At least 90% of people wud have utilized AC21 and change employers.
Ofcourse you always convince the higher authorities, to let us file 485s and issue GC, when dates become current.
As long as we file 485 and utilize AC21, we will be in safe situation.
Have some plan and result oriented plan.
Thinking big is ok, but we shd know what actually we can do.
- gcretroiv
Please use this money for constructive tasks.
Since first day, if u have tried to make I485 filing w/o priority date current..
At least 90% of people wud have utilized AC21 and change employers.
Ofcourse you always convince the higher authorities, to let us file 485s and issue GC, when dates become current.
As long as we file 485 and utilize AC21, we will be in safe situation.
Have some plan and result oriented plan.
Thinking big is ok, but we shd know what actually we can do.
- gcretroiv
gchopes
04-19 12:28 PM
My lawyer said it was ok and we have applied for h4 extension for spouse. Its under regular processing at VSC so I won't know the outcome for a few months.
more...
Adam
09-21 01:26 PM
:lol:
2010 Medium Length Scene Girls
addsf345
06-15 08:00 PM
Will it be ok to change employers multiple times on EAD with in shrt span of time difference?
yes, after being a 'chicken' for so long, I changed job on AC21 six months back. And since then changed twice after that. (once forced due to economy, second time moved to a better position) in fact now I am loving the freedom that comes with EAD. Only make sure you stick to same profession (programming) other things like salary or job title etc doesn't matter. Good Luck!
yes, after being a 'chicken' for so long, I changed job on AC21 six months back. And since then changed twice after that. (once forced due to economy, second time moved to a better position) in fact now I am loving the freedom that comes with EAD. Only make sure you stick to same profession (programming) other things like salary or job title etc doesn't matter. Good Luck!
more...
RadioactveChimp
05-01 09:20 PM
wow that dog is cheap! i send you 28 ~s via paypal tonight
hair tattoo Medium length hairstyle
seahawks
04-28 02:42 AM
depends on state law, WA state does not consider H4 as a resident, just found out a month ago, when my wife finished all the tests and everything else and found she had to pay non resident tuition. So she decided not to go to school. CA considers H4 as a resident provided all other criteria are met.
more...
tabletpc
01-09 12:00 PM
Can anyone throw some light on this query...
I presently work for a cap excempt employer and now looking for employer who could file for my h1b under cap subjected in the month of april witha start date of oct 2008.
I would like the new employer to file my visa in such a way that, i could still continue with my present full time job even after oct 2008. Based on what i have understood, i guess if the new employer files as "COncurrent H1b" then i can join him at my wish after oct 2008 provided new emplyer has not revoked my h1b. Am i right..???
Also ..how many concurrent h1b can i have at a time..???
I don't want to miss this year quota, so want to make sure i take all precaution to get h1b cleared.
Greatly apprecite inputs...
I presently work for a cap excempt employer and now looking for employer who could file for my h1b under cap subjected in the month of april witha start date of oct 2008.
I would like the new employer to file my visa in such a way that, i could still continue with my present full time job even after oct 2008. Based on what i have understood, i guess if the new employer files as "COncurrent H1b" then i can join him at my wish after oct 2008 provided new emplyer has not revoked my h1b. Am i right..???
Also ..how many concurrent h1b can i have at a time..???
I don't want to miss this year quota, so want to make sure i take all precaution to get h1b cleared.
Greatly apprecite inputs...
hot Medium Length Hair styles With
pani_6
03-25 02:10 PM
I had FP done way back in October 07..but there is no status change LUD on I-485..what to do??.:confused:..Do I take an appointment to talk to an officer or simply call USCIS ..
more...
house Long Medium hairstyle
gcformeornot
04-23 09:34 AM
what are the security checks involved with the green card process, and when do they come up?
up sometimes during 140 stage(security). But 100% during 485 stage.
The check I know is called "Name Check" done at 485 stage.
up sometimes during 140 stage(security). But 100% during 485 stage.
The check I know is called "Name Check" done at 485 stage.
tattoo Hairstyle Handbook. brunette with short layered hair and angs
LondonTown
02-14 05:14 PM
"Green cards will go out, background check or not" -- Please read this (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5533508.html) and this. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/washington/12checks.html?hp)
more...
pictures medium long hairstyle
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
dresses Section: Long Hair Views: 1092
ujjvalkoul
07-25 11:51 AM
Does anyone know how slow/fast/better is the Counsular Processing back in India if you ever become eligible to do that?
Is itbetter than applying 485 here and waiting .......ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
Is itbetter than applying 485 here and waiting .......ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
more...
makeup medium length hair styles
Blog Feeds
07-15 04:40 PM
Thanks to reader Adi for the link. Huffington Post reports on a data compiled by America's Voice showing crime in Arizona dropping dramatically across the state for most of the last decade EXCEPT for the area controlled by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Which goes to show you that facts matter very little to Arizonans buying into the antis arguments.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/sheriff-joes-jurisdiction-only-area-where-crime-is-up-in-arizona.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/sheriff-joes-jurisdiction-only-area-where-crime-is-up-in-arizona.html)
girlfriend Medium Length Hairstyles,
cbd80
09-15 09:09 PM
I transfer my H1B to company B and works for company B. Now suppose if I want to go back to company A after six months and want to work for company A, does the h1b transfer required? (means, does company A requires to file whole h1b petition again?) Here my petition (I-797) with company A is still valid. And suppose if I want to go back to company A after 4 years, at that time my petition (I-797) with company A might be expired, does the company A requires to file new petition (tranfer) or just the extension?
hairstyles layered medium length hair
ChalapathiChitturi
11-01 05:30 AM
Your I-485 will not go forward unti they receive the 140 approval.
I-485 petition will be undated automatically as soon as the corresponding I-140 is approved.
As far as I know, you don't have to inform uscis about your I-140 approval.
I-485 petition will be undated automatically as soon as the corresponding I-140 is approved.
As far as I know, you don't have to inform uscis about your I-140 approval.
rdehar
07-16 02:26 PM
Hi Friends,
What does it take to port from EB3 to EB2 (aside from job requirements, duties and all that), specifically:
. Do I have to file labor/I-140 all over again ?
Thanks for any useful info anyone can provide.
What does it take to port from EB3 to EB2 (aside from job requirements, duties and all that), specifically:
. Do I have to file labor/I-140 all over again ?
Thanks for any useful info anyone can provide.
kumar1305
02-15 06:40 AM
I do not want hijack this post. just want to know if any one got stamping done from Bahamas recently. And if there were any PIMS delays?
Thank you.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment