chrisclick
08-22 08:46 AM
Nice. Like the last one :)
wallpaper hair mohawk hairstyle worn
invincibleasian
02-17 06:02 PM
Another useful thread!
we_can
06-02 05:13 PM
I am one of the ones who had missed the July 07 boat. My PD is finally current.
My attorney is getting ready to file all the items (485, EAD, AP etc) tomorrow.
How soon can I expect the FP Notice?
Also, since I am applying only now, how long before I can hope to see Green?
My attorney is getting ready to file all the items (485, EAD, AP etc) tomorrow.
How soon can I expect the FP Notice?
Also, since I am applying only now, how long before I can hope to see Green?
2011 dreadlock mohawk styles
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
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
seeking_GC
09-13 04:43 PM
where is this info posted?
If it is true then we should make some efforts to get our points in.
Core members, your opinion on this?
If it is true then we should make some efforts to get our points in.
Core members, your opinion on this?
more...
veni001
08-04 08:02 AM
One think people don't get is, whether the current/future job qualify for EB2, It doesn't matter even you have a Phd and the job only requires Bachelor or equivalent then it is EB3, also certain programming jobs doesn't qualify for EB2. First ask your HR for min job requirement!:(
I have bachelors degree in law and 7 years human resource training development manager. Could I apply for eb2?
I have bachelors degree in law and 7 years human resource training development manager. Could I apply for eb2?
2010 The raided Mohawk was a
rockyrock
07-28 11:41 AM
I have got 2 I-140 (one pending and approved) both from different lawyers.....I applied 485 with my approved I-140 with this lawyer, but am not sure if he has applied or not as he had given wrong info few times before...... he claims he has applied.........my question is - Can I go ahead and apply another 485 with the pending I-140 frm another lawyer to be on the same side? I plan to withdraw one once I receive both receipts.....Any risks?
more...
floridaguy
06-23 08:41 PM
Friends - anyone here who has applied in PERM where job required B.S + 2 - 4 yrs of experience? Mine is a Job zone 4(sr. software engineer), requires B.S + 30 months and in the PERM form the lawyer has entered 'No' to H12 question 'Is this normal requirements'. Were they right? Or should I be worried? Anybody can share any experience? Thanks!
hair mens medium hairstyles. medium
sapking
10-11 07:13 PM
Contact your attorney..
more...
glus
07-25 10:45 AM
Is any one got receipt of 485filing on july 2nd? Please post the status like checks are cashed, receipt,retuns etc.
Not yet. They are still entering Jun cases.
Not yet. They are still entering Jun cases.
hot Curly Mohawk Hairstyles.
ad_325
08-25 05:54 PM
Hi Experts,
Would appreciate your help here. My sister is studying on H4 visa and her husband applied for I-140 in EB1 but it got rejected and now they have filed appeal for the same. He has his I-140 approved for NIW already though. Currently, My sister wants to move from H4 to F1 Visa as NIW case will take a lot of time and EB1 case has less chance of getting approved. Is there any problem in doing so ? Will having approved I-140 for NIW or pending appeal case affect her F1 application ?
Would really appreciate your help here !.
Thanks
Would appreciate your help here. My sister is studying on H4 visa and her husband applied for I-140 in EB1 but it got rejected and now they have filed appeal for the same. He has his I-140 approved for NIW already though. Currently, My sister wants to move from H4 to F1 Visa as NIW case will take a lot of time and EB1 case has less chance of getting approved. Is there any problem in doing so ? Will having approved I-140 for NIW or pending appeal case affect her F1 application ?
Would really appreciate your help here !.
Thanks
more...
house short mohawk hairstylesquot;,
freedom1
05-22 01:02 PM
This is the scenario:
1. Husband becomes a LPR this year.
2. Wife still undocumented.
3. Wife was working long time ago, but became a housewife for the past 6 years, so no work.
How would the wife adjust her status under the new CIR if she was not working for the past 6 years?
Would she have to wait until the husband is able to petition her through other regular means?
Any ideas or is it too early to tell how USCIS will issue it's regulations about CIR?
Freedom1 :confused:
1. Husband becomes a LPR this year.
2. Wife still undocumented.
3. Wife was working long time ago, but became a housewife for the past 6 years, so no work.
How would the wife adjust her status under the new CIR if she was not working for the past 6 years?
Would she have to wait until the husband is able to petition her through other regular means?
Any ideas or is it too early to tell how USCIS will issue it's regulations about CIR?
Freedom1 :confused:
tattoo raided mohawk with twist
pansworld
07-08 02:16 PM
Does IV have any contacts with tech lobby so that messages can be sent out as soon as possible?
more...
pictures house Trendy Mohawk Hairstyle
arc
11-07 07:58 PM
but as far as the AD is concerned, an AD is for a position not for a person, if 1 AD satisfy the skill set and available position then one AD can work for multiple positions.
dresses Razor Cut
iv_only_hope
01-16 11:10 AM
Why are you applying for an H1 when you already have a EAD?
more...
makeup hairstyle braided mohawk
nomorelogins
01-11 11:18 AM
i guess as long as your AP is valid
girlfriend braid mohawk haircut,
black_logs
01-24 07:28 PM
As a policy we call and verify each volunteer before we sign up. I will apreciate if you could send me an email with your contact numbers
black_logs@yahoo.com. Or PM me your contact info.
Thanks
Please sign me in for WA state. I live in Vancouver, WA.
black_logs@yahoo.com. Or PM me your contact info.
Thanks
Please sign me in for WA state. I live in Vancouver, WA.
hairstyles raided hair styles
vinzak
04-27 05:32 PM
Instead of building a border fence to help stem illegal immigration, the U.S. government should implant microchips into immigrants before deportation, much like what is done with pets, Pat Bertroche, an Urbandale physician and one of seven Republicans running in the 3rd District Congressional primary, said Monday.
Install microchips in illegal immigrants, GOP candidate says � Iowa Independent (http://iowaindependent.com/32926/install-microchips-in-illegal-immigrants-gop-candidate-says)
Install microchips in illegal immigrants, GOP candidate says � Iowa Independent (http://iowaindependent.com/32926/install-microchips-in-illegal-immigrants-gop-candidate-says)
sam_hoosier
01-21 03:58 PM
Hi,
I have got my EAD and want to do part time job as well as work on H1 for the employee who sponsored my GC, What is my status? I am still on H1 or AOS? I would be glad if someone can reply!
If you use your EAD (for part time or full time), you are on EAD and your H1B status is gone. It does not matter that you primary job is still on H1B.
I have got my EAD and want to do part time job as well as work on H1 for the employee who sponsored my GC, What is my status? I am still on H1 or AOS? I would be glad if someone can reply!
If you use your EAD (for part time or full time), you are on EAD and your H1B status is gone. It does not matter that you primary job is still on H1B.
Kowsik9002
04-18 04:17 PM
My cousin is a GC holder and plans to bring wife, who is indian citizen here to U.S., please tell me how long it will take, what applications to apply for and such. Thanks you.
Kowsik
Kowsik
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий