Madhuri
05-27 03:19 PM
What will the answer to the question Current immigration status while filing EAD electonically, i am on EAD rite now and i have never used my advance parole.* Pls help..
In e-file this question is not mandatory, so I guess we can leave it blank in case we have doubt.
In e-file this question is not mandatory, so I guess we can leave it blank in case we have doubt.
wallpaper dresses rown to dark skin/
mrsr
07-19 10:30 AM
exactly , thats y i tried to make a poll and bring it under one thread , but seems i forgot to make it open poll , so cant see who is polling .. any idea how to edit the poll ? can any one of the moderators make this poll viewable .. i dont have the option to edit poll it seems .
there are gazillion bazillion threads for july filers. Can we have one thread only.
thanks
there are gazillion bazillion threads for july filers. Can we have one thread only.
thanks
montoya
04-07 06:51 AM
the quick answers. Draw your shapes in the extrusion editor with the pencil tool. Outside shape of the hex nut and inside shape. If you get the shape you want, it will be a nice hex nut when you return to scene editor.
The right answer: Draw in illustrator and save your self the headache of drawing to draw anything outside of simple primitives in swift.
The even better answer. Any other true modeling program will provide better results. (from 3d paint, 3ds, maya, etc..)
Good luck!
The right answer: Draw in illustrator and save your self the headache of drawing to draw anything outside of simple primitives in swift.
The even better answer. Any other true modeling program will provide better results. (from 3d paint, 3ds, maya, etc..)
Good luck!
2011 makeup fair skin has Dark
xbothiokx
03-09 08:05 AM
http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad300/xbothiokx/text.png
more...
alien02k
07-10 08:01 PM
First of all I am filing by postal mail USPS(not e-filing)
1)is it necessary to include I-765 receipt notice(EAD) with my AP application.. But I have only my last years one which will expire in a few months.
2) for AP renewal is it necessary to include marriage certificate for spouse
3) When filing by postal mail, and also considering i applied my I-485/I-140 before july 30/2007, old fee schedule... do i need to pay biometric fee for my renewal
4) I am in Texas and for mailing EAD and AP - can I send them together for me and my spouse. I see different PO Boxes for EAD and AP addresses for the Mesquite, TX address
IN I-765, is it enough only to specify the previous EAD information regarding the office filed and receipt date...or do i have to include my OPT EAD as well as my previous EAD filed last year.
Thank you
1)is it necessary to include I-765 receipt notice(EAD) with my AP application.. But I have only my last years one which will expire in a few months.
2) for AP renewal is it necessary to include marriage certificate for spouse
3) When filing by postal mail, and also considering i applied my I-485/I-140 before july 30/2007, old fee schedule... do i need to pay biometric fee for my renewal
4) I am in Texas and for mailing EAD and AP - can I send them together for me and my spouse. I see different PO Boxes for EAD and AP addresses for the Mesquite, TX address
IN I-765, is it enough only to specify the previous EAD information regarding the office filed and receipt date...or do i have to include my OPT EAD as well as my previous EAD filed last year.
Thank you
ivx
03-18 01:50 PM
My current H1 expires on Sept 30. My employer is planning to apply for an extension in the first week of April. Can they file my LCA in advance so that they can have an approved LCA by the first week of April? Or, do they have to wait till Apr 1st (6 months before current H1 expiration) to file for the LCA ? I was not able to find information about this specific scenario.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
more...
Blog Feeds
03-05 06:20 PM
Immigration Lawyers Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
50 new individuals become naturalized U.S. citizens March 1, 2010 in a special ceremony at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice's Great Hall. In light of this special ceremony, the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) has published the following citizenship statistics:
1907: 7,941 individuals naturalized
1908: 25,975 individuals naturalized
1971-1980: 1.5 million individuals naturalized (main areas were Europe, Philippines, Cuba and China)
1981-1990: 2.3 million individuals naturalized (main areas were Asia, Canada and Mexico)
1991-2000: 5.6 million individuals naturalized (main areas were Philippines, Vietnam and Mexico)
2001-2010: Over 5.6 million individuals naturalized (main areas are Philippines, Vietnam and Mexico)
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/_QKlU7h7aYA
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/_QKlU7h7aYA/us_citizenship_statistics.html)
50 new individuals become naturalized U.S. citizens March 1, 2010 in a special ceremony at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice's Great Hall. In light of this special ceremony, the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) has published the following citizenship statistics:
1907: 7,941 individuals naturalized
1908: 25,975 individuals naturalized
1971-1980: 1.5 million individuals naturalized (main areas were Europe, Philippines, Cuba and China)
1981-1990: 2.3 million individuals naturalized (main areas were Asia, Canada and Mexico)
1991-2000: 5.6 million individuals naturalized (main areas were Philippines, Vietnam and Mexico)
2001-2010: Over 5.6 million individuals naturalized (main areas are Philippines, Vietnam and Mexico)
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/_QKlU7h7aYA
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/_QKlU7h7aYA/us_citizenship_statistics.html)
2010 hair What
Macaca
10-14 09:54 AM
Nativism In the House: A Report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus (http://www.buildingdemocracy.org/Nativism_In_the_House/A_Report_on_the_HIRC/Nativism_In_the_House%3A_A_Report_on_the_House_Imm igration_Reform_Caucus_200710091083/), 09 October 2007
New Report Analyzes the Immigration Reform Caucus' Role in Derailing True Immigration Reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-trevi/new-report-analyzes-the-i_b_68035.html) By Marisa Trevi�o, October 11, 2007
New Report Analyzes the Immigration Reform Caucus' Role in Derailing True Immigration Reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-trevi/new-report-analyzes-the-i_b_68035.html) By Marisa Trevi�o, October 11, 2007
more...
gk_2000
04-06 04:30 PM
Hmm fresh new ID?
hair 2010 Katie – dark brown hair
gc_on_demand
08-07 10:03 AM
Notice Receipt of old I 140 should be attached.
more...
gc_maine2
06-11 08:59 AM
You can write (c) (09) or (c) (9). Hope this helps.
What should be filled for question 16 in I765 form.
My lawyer asked me to fill C C 9, but the instruction says C 9. Which is correct.
What should be filled for question 16 in I765 form.
My lawyer asked me to fill C C 9, but the instruction says C 9. Which is correct.
hot If you have a dark skin brown
Munna Bhai
01-10 01:12 PM
H1b extension will be for rest of the period, in your case 1year + 8 months.
more...
house hair color dark skin
royus77
07-06 06:32 PM
My LD 01/31/2003 I485 date 10/20/03 extending my EAD 4th time. Stuck in backlog center TX. Any one recently got from TX backlog?
You are extending your 4 th EAD and here we are fighting for the first EADeven our days are current ( of course changed them back) ....Be happy with where you are and contribute ..please dont start a new thread unless its a uniique issue
You are extending your 4 th EAD and here we are fighting for the first EADeven our days are current ( of course changed them back) ....Be happy with where you are and contribute ..please dont start a new thread unless its a uniique issue
tattoo elizabeth calabrese in rown
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.
more...
pictures Dark Brown Hair On Pale Skin.
sandyhu2
06-02 01:13 PM
I just got a letter from USCIS saying that I need to get a police clearance(b/c my fingerprints are unclassifiable) within 30 days otherwise it may result in the denial of my application.
I am now out of states working for my U.S. employer's overseas branch and can't go back to US until end of Aug. Is there anyway I can ask USCIS to give me some extention period?
Thanks !!
I am now out of states working for my U.S. employer's overseas branch and can't go back to US until end of Aug. Is there anyway I can ask USCIS to give me some extention period?
Thanks !!
dresses Dark Brown Hair,
Blog Feeds
09-14 10:10 AM
Yesterday Congressman Joe Wilson talked to reporters about his claim that the President was lying about immigrants having access to health care subsidies under the President's health care plan. According to the NY Times: �I�m for immigration,� [Wilson] said, adding that he had been an immigration lawyer, although he did not specify exactly what he had done. �But people who come toour country and violated our laws, we should not be providing full services.� It struck me immediately that this would be bizarre if true. Going from representing immigrants to being a member of the virulently anti-immigrant Immigration Reform Caucus...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/did-joe-wilson-make-up-story-about-practicing-immigration-law.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/did-joe-wilson-make-up-story-about-practicing-immigration-law.html)
more...
makeup Brand: Infallible. Loreal
Coolgulti
04-28 08:43 PM
Any Idea?
Please give some suggestions what to do?
Please give some suggestions what to do?
girlfriend Dark Brown Hair Pale Skin
sameer2730
10-24 02:53 PM
Are you allowed to work on H1b for your primary employer and EAD for your own LLC. My wife applied for 485 as a derivative applicant. She has her H1b valid until next year. When she resumed work last year after her pregnancy she submitted her EAD card to the employer's attorney. So far she was under the impression she is now working on EAD. Suddenly the attorney calls her and tells her that they are recommending and H1 extension.
Which is fine if it is possible but in the meantime she has started her own LLC which is likely to generate revenue soon. Is it valid for her to do so while resuming H1b status? Will it be construed that she is working for her own LLC using her EAD.
Thanks
Which is fine if it is possible but in the meantime she has started her own LLC which is likely to generate revenue soon. Is it valid for her to do so while resuming H1b status? Will it be construed that she is working for her own LLC using her EAD.
Thanks
hairstyles I have dark hair pale skin and
piyu7444
05-05 10:56 PM
You should get to talk to USCIS coz this is wrong for sure......USCIS should issue you a new EAD with no additional cost.........Even if you do not plan to use EAD card get the issue fixed.......
ajmh96
05-21 10:34 PM
Hello Friends,
In January I filed i765 (17 month extension) and I received the 797C notice which had a typographical error (Birth date error caused by USCIS), so I informed USCIS and got that corrected. I received a letter stating that the birth date has been corrected but eventually, when I received the approved EAD card, the error was still there. Then, I reapplied the i765 form with all the necessary docs and the original EAD card, but somehow, it got lost. I applied the whole application set again but this time with the photocopy of the EAD card, the error proofs and a cover letter but no check/money order.
It's been 1 month and I have not received any updates on my case. I called USCIS and they don't have any updates on the case. Do you think USCIS can cause a problem in approving my application and can I still work while my application is still pending.
Ajay Malhotra
In January I filed i765 (17 month extension) and I received the 797C notice which had a typographical error (Birth date error caused by USCIS), so I informed USCIS and got that corrected. I received a letter stating that the birth date has been corrected but eventually, when I received the approved EAD card, the error was still there. Then, I reapplied the i765 form with all the necessary docs and the original EAD card, but somehow, it got lost. I applied the whole application set again but this time with the photocopy of the EAD card, the error proofs and a cover letter but no check/money order.
It's been 1 month and I have not received any updates on my case. I called USCIS and they don't have any updates on the case. Do you think USCIS can cause a problem in approving my application and can I still work while my application is still pending.
Ajay Malhotra
easygoer
08-17 07:37 PM
Aruben,
thank you for your reply. I wanted to confirm beofre I leave for Canada.
thank you for your reply. I wanted to confirm beofre I leave for Canada.
No comments:
Post a Comment