paskal
07-19 08:12 PM
anyone ca make a mistake man!
wallpaper Ms Kelly CD Cover Photo
TwinkleM
01-11 12:47 AM
Would appreciate the input on my querries by the attorneys & the people who has experienced similar situation.
My spouse's Advance Parole is expiring in mid February 2010. He is pplanning to travel to India by mid - jan & return back by 3rd feb'2010.
My questions is:
1) Is the time gap of 15 days before the expiry of the AP is safe to re-enter USA?
2) SHould he apply for the renewal of the AP before he leaves? If yes, then if the advance parole renewal approves before he re-enters the country, can he still re-enter on the old Advance Parole document or the old one gets automatically nullified?
3) Should he be in the country during the time the advance parole approves?
The situation is very urgent. Immediate feedback is highly appreciated.
Thanx In Advance
My spouse's Advance Parole is expiring in mid February 2010. He is pplanning to travel to India by mid - jan & return back by 3rd feb'2010.
My questions is:
1) Is the time gap of 15 days before the expiry of the AP is safe to re-enter USA?
2) SHould he apply for the renewal of the AP before he leaves? If yes, then if the advance parole renewal approves before he re-enters the country, can he still re-enter on the old Advance Parole document or the old one gets automatically nullified?
3) Should he be in the country during the time the advance parole approves?
The situation is very urgent. Immediate feedback is highly appreciated.
Thanx In Advance
aray
09-26 02:46 PM
I think I know the answer to this, but I just wanted to make sure from the experts on this forum.
Do we need to apply for new EAD/AP if we change jobs using AC21 even if the current EAD/AP (approved when working for the GC sponsoring employer) are valid for almost 10 more months?
I think that EAD/AP are not dependent/tied to the employer.
Am I right gurus?
Do we need to apply for new EAD/AP if we change jobs using AC21 even if the current EAD/AP (approved when working for the GC sponsoring employer) are valid for almost 10 more months?
I think that EAD/AP are not dependent/tied to the employer.
Am I right gurus?
2011 Kelly Rowland album cover
devs
06-26 05:29 AM
hi,
My h1 is approved in this years quota but i have not received I797. During this period if my h4 is stamped will my h1 be cancelled. or can i go to US on
h4 and then change my status to h1 ?
My h1 is approved in this years quota but i have not received I797. During this period if my h4 is stamped will my h1 be cancelled. or can i go to US on
h4 and then change my status to h1 ?
more...
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
In short, the E-Verify federal contractor rule lives and the no-match rule dies. The E-Verify contractor rule and the no-match rules were released in the tail end of the Bush Administration. The E-Verify rule would require most major federal contractors to use E-Verify in order to qualify for their contracts. The no-match rule covered situations where employers received letters from the Social Security Administration notifying them that employees social security numbers do not match their names. The rule outlined specific procedures for employers to follow after receiving such letters and the penalty for not following the procedures is a potential...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/white-house-makes-decisions-on-everify-and-nomatch-rules.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/white-house-makes-decisions-on-everify-and-nomatch-rules.html)
Domino
11-03 02:14 AM
Hello,
If one has EB1 (Extraordinary Ability) Pending, is one allowed to stay in the US until the case is decided? I know it may takes at least an year for the final approval...
If one has EB1 (Extraordinary Ability) Pending, is one allowed to stay in the US until the case is decided? I know it may takes at least an year for the final approval...
more...
kpchal2
03-13 04:14 PM
Hi, I have my labor approved by Company A and I140 filed as soon as I got the labor. Before this I140 got approved I changed to Company B who filed for my labor and applied for I140 as soon as it got approved. My I140 with company B got approved and then the I140 with the old company A got approved 3 months later. Can I somehow get the old PD. Can some one who have been in similar situation or know some one in the similar situation answer this. I will be able to get a 2 year advance if this works out.
2010 makeup Kelly Rowland – What A
willgetgc2005
04-13 06:33 PM
Hi,
Here is the BEC update. GUYS, Any thoughts on the claim that RIR cases wil be complete by end of April 2007 ?
AILA's 03/15/2007 Liaison Meeting minutes reflect the following statistics:
Total Cases Pending: 96,304
TR Cases: Approx. 75,000 [Recruitment instructions and job order will be completed by Mary 2007]
RIR Cases: Approx. 20,000 [Most of RIR cases expected to be completed by the end of April, 2007, except problem cases]
Total RIR Conversion Received: 6,000
RIR Eligible Determination Cases: 5,100
Here is the BEC update. GUYS, Any thoughts on the claim that RIR cases wil be complete by end of April 2007 ?
AILA's 03/15/2007 Liaison Meeting minutes reflect the following statistics:
Total Cases Pending: 96,304
TR Cases: Approx. 75,000 [Recruitment instructions and job order will be completed by Mary 2007]
RIR Cases: Approx. 20,000 [Most of RIR cases expected to be completed by the end of April, 2007, except problem cases]
Total RIR Conversion Received: 6,000
RIR Eligible Determination Cases: 5,100
more...
![what a feeling kelly rowland album cover. Kelly Rowland] - Album](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNYBa9PhgClSbYfIAYCxtLQ1IM6-bDiESpqyfgFItGusFeK8oBcOFcPW84DJPOwNjcikwFjb1g_DLZu7kOumpBJyntxKvtKzvrg3U_LkON_7NeZInX_V96BppL8iEqtML-KloyIxXtVu8/s400/What+a+Feeling+%252528Remixes%252529+%25255Bfeat.+Kelly+Rowland%25255D+1.png "Kelly Rowland] - Album")
blao
07-08 05:15 PM
we are on last stage approved i-130 USA citizen for married daughter.
because we overstayed in USA since 1996 here do we have to leave country since we applied only in 2003?
this would be a disaster since we have nobody in Italy that con support us until get a waiver from USA counsolate....they said about 9 months if everything is ok...
my only hope is that a read something about cancellation of deportation and adjustment of status here in USA no needed to leave country...how dangerous can be to start this process, wile waiting for last stage of i-130?
i have good business, house, cars, furniture here and always paid taxes. 2 USA kids. thanks gimme hope
because we overstayed in USA since 1996 here do we have to leave country since we applied only in 2003?
this would be a disaster since we have nobody in Italy that con support us until get a waiver from USA counsolate....they said about 9 months if everything is ok...
my only hope is that a read something about cancellation of deportation and adjustment of status here in USA no needed to leave country...how dangerous can be to start this process, wile waiting for last stage of i-130?
i have good business, house, cars, furniture here and always paid taxes. 2 USA kids. thanks gimme hope
hair Kelly Rowland- What A Feeling
%2520Kelly%2520Rowland%2520-%2520What%2520a%2520feeling.jpg "Listen: What a feeling")
Citizen of the World
01-18 11:01 AM
NVS International--www.nogalesvisaservices.com
The U.S. Consulate in Nogales Mexico has been really efficient in issuing appointments as well as Visa Stampings. You are able to schedule them in one week from the date you apply; the process takes no more than two days. 98% of NVS's Clients in the last month have been in and out on the same day of the appointment with no issues. There have been a few cases where people had to stay one or two extra days for additional proccessing.
If you need any help with anything from: Transportation (From the Airport to Nogales and within Mexico to the U.S. Consulate), Visa Application fee processing (Bank Draft) and Lodging please contact:
NVS International and visit us at: www.nogalesvisaservices.com or e-mail: japujol@nogalesvisaservices.com.
NVS International's staff is fully bilingual (English/Spanish) and all natives of Nogales. They really help make your visit as simple and worry free as possible. The staff makes sure you get to your appointment on time and assists you until you get in and make sure you have no problems until you are back in the USA.
The U.S. Consulate in Nogales Mexico has been really efficient in issuing appointments as well as Visa Stampings. You are able to schedule them in one week from the date you apply; the process takes no more than two days. 98% of NVS's Clients in the last month have been in and out on the same day of the appointment with no issues. There have been a few cases where people had to stay one or two extra days for additional proccessing.
If you need any help with anything from: Transportation (From the Airport to Nogales and within Mexico to the U.S. Consulate), Visa Application fee processing (Bank Draft) and Lodging please contact:
NVS International and visit us at: www.nogalesvisaservices.com or e-mail: japujol@nogalesvisaservices.com.
NVS International's staff is fully bilingual (English/Spanish) and all natives of Nogales. They really help make your visit as simple and worry free as possible. The staff makes sure you get to your appointment on time and assists you until you get in and make sure you have no problems until you are back in the USA.
more...
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
hot Kelly Rowland - Past 12 Lyrics
pmamp
03-02 03:23 PM
Can I apply for EAD for spouse on the basis of I-140 approval? I can not file I-485 due to retrogression and he is running out of her H1B visa limit.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
house Album: What A Feeling CDS
tfakhan
01-10 02:27 PM
^^^^^bump^^^^^
tattoo Here#39;s the video for What A
cvt123
06-19 07:31 PM
I read some where that more immigrant visa will be available starting from July 1? Is it true?
more...
pictures kelly rowland album cover,
moises07
01-08 08:56 AM
How can I wrap Text around a 3D object created in either Swift 3D v1 or v2?
Moises
www.sigmalambdabeta.com (http://www.sigmalambdabeta.com)
Moises
www.sigmalambdabeta.com (http://www.sigmalambdabeta.com)
dresses Kelly Rowland – “What A
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
more...
makeup Kelly Rowland] - Album
number30
04-18 03:55 PM
Hello Gurus ,
I am looking for H1 Transfer with 4 months left in H1 six year limit .I lost my job 10 days back.I have approved I-140 but its has not been six months yet after approval .I have not yet filed 485 .
Will I qualify for 3 year H1 extension based on my approved I-140 .?
Thank you in advance
If your priority dates are not current you will get three years H1
I am looking for H1 Transfer with 4 months left in H1 six year limit .I lost my job 10 days back.I have approved I-140 but its has not been six months yet after approval .I have not yet filed 485 .
Will I qualify for 3 year H1 extension based on my approved I-140 .?
Thank you in advance
If your priority dates are not current you will get three years H1
girlfriend Alex Gaudino amp; Kelly Rowland
scamp
08-26 05:26 PM
Pls Help anyone???:confused:
hairstyles Kelly Rowland - What A Feeling
srini6uc
03-04 08:27 PM
Hi
My I130 application (green card filed through my sister) was approved recently. Can I extend my currend H1B visa beyond six year term through this I130 approval.
Thanks alot
My I130 application (green card filed through my sister) was approved recently. Can I extend my currend H1B visa beyond six year term through this I130 approval.
Thanks alot
rsrikant
07-18 11:17 AM
Sent Date: 12-Jul-2007
Received Date: 13-Jul-2007
Receipt Status: Dont know.
Service Center: NSC
EBIII SEP 2004
Received Date: 13-Jul-2007
Receipt Status: Dont know.
Service Center: NSC
EBIII SEP 2004
georgemonster
04-26 07:54 PM
yep me like too. I was expecting one of those Richard D James little girls though, from come to daddy.
Good Good.
Good Good.
No comments:
Post a Comment