ivgclive
09-21 12:25 PM
D
wallpaper Sedu Long Hairstyles Posted by
Toikenin
05-05 02:12 PM
Is there any way to draw something in Swift 3D, the transform it into 3D, that is what they advertise, but I can't find how to do this
Blog Feeds
06-22 10:10 AM
My friend Angelo Paparelli writes about something that is probably on the minds of many immigration lawyers who've been practicing for more than a few years - will Congress and the President treat Iranian students in the US the same as we did for Chinese students 20 years ago when young people in that country rose up against an oppressive government? Harken back to the fallout from the Chinese Communists' quelling of democracy with tanks and bloodshed in Tieneman Square. The Congress and the first President Bush took two-and-a-half years to protect the Chinese citizens who feared return to the...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/will-congress-provide-safe-haven-for-iranian-students-in-us.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/will-congress-provide-safe-haven-for-iranian-students-in-us.html)
2011 diane kruger hairstyle
abhijitp
09-27 06:42 PM
The topic already has a thread, but not sure why it won't show up on page 1 even we bumped it up.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13537
Has anyone seen this pattern before for any service center? A "processing times" entry missing? Could this be just an accident, or are they sending the I-140's to another service center? This could mean a LOT to people who sent their I-140's and I-485's concurrently to TSC.
Thanks!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13537
Has anyone seen this pattern before for any service center? A "processing times" entry missing? Could this be just an accident, or are they sending the I-140's to another service center? This could mean a LOT to people who sent their I-140's and I-485's concurrently to TSC.
Thanks!
more...
prem_goel
09-09 03:54 PM
Visa Bulletin for October 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5145.html)
Looks like the dates did not retrogress. Bit of a good news :)
EB2-I 08MAY06
EB3-I 15JAN02
EB2-C 22MAY06
EB3-C 08NOV03
Looks like the dates did not retrogress. Bit of a good news :)
EB2-I 08MAY06
EB3-I 15JAN02
EB2-C 22MAY06
EB3-C 08NOV03
xgr3
05-14 08:59 PM
No, I have not moved to different state. I am in the same state since the day I filed my labor.
more...
thara
03-08 10:29 PM
I got labor cert approve on FEB10 and going to apply I-140 via preium process in Mar 15.
My Laber cert was file on April 09 and I have been paid lower than prevailing wage since the company reduce working hour and aset of company is 0
Year 2008
W2 + Net income tax return of company reach required wage
Year 2009
W2 + ballance sheet reach required wage (but net income tax return for 2009 is not availble yet)
Are they going to ask for 2009 net income tax return in March? if my company going to file tax extension this year and I also afraid that the net income in tax return may be lower than the number in balance sheet this year.
Is it posible that My case would be get approve without any RFE?
Thank you so much for your response i have been worried about my case for a while......
pls help
My Laber cert was file on April 09 and I have been paid lower than prevailing wage since the company reduce working hour and aset of company is 0
Year 2008
W2 + Net income tax return of company reach required wage
Year 2009
W2 + ballance sheet reach required wage (but net income tax return for 2009 is not availble yet)
Are they going to ask for 2009 net income tax return in March? if my company going to file tax extension this year and I also afraid that the net income in tax return may be lower than the number in balance sheet this year.
Is it posible that My case would be get approve without any RFE?
Thank you so much for your response i have been worried about my case for a while......
pls help
2010 Change Your Hairstyle, Change
hsm2007
10-01 12:23 PM
Anyone?
more...
ranand00
04-08 08:30 PM
My H1B was approved for location A (MICHIGAN),ONE MONTH AGO.Now my employer wants me to work in location B(PA).My question-
Do I have to wait until labor is approved for location B or can I start working from monday and labor(for location B) can come in 10-15 days thereafter.I am a PT.
Thanks
Anand
Do I have to wait until labor is approved for location B or can I start working from monday and labor(for location B) can come in 10-15 days thereafter.I am a PT.
Thanks
Anand
hair Short Punk Hair Style
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
more...
waitnwatch
07-18 04:56 PM
In the right hand column on the homepage the threads used to be listed in chronological order with the one containing the last post on top.
Now it has changed so that I get the threads listed randomly.
Tech gurus - is there a way to fix this so that I can see the latest post on top like I used to previously.
Please help!!!!!!!!!!!
Now it has changed so that I get the threads listed randomly.
Tech gurus - is there a way to fix this so that I can see the latest post on top like I used to previously.
Please help!!!!!!!!!!!
hot 2010 vintage hairstyle how to
eastindia
04-20 01:39 PM
Can any attorneys help us?
more...
house Jon Bon Jovi Hairstyles
dammeinmarrtin
08-10 01:56 AM
My wife and I got married here in the Phil.He wants to file for an immigrant visa.We've been searching on the internet for some info but unfortunately we have some problem with some sites coz we cant get access to it.I also want to know how long it'll take to process an immigrant visa and the fees.
tattoo Ice Jon New men Hairstyle in
GCaspirations
10-16 06:38 PM
I recently got my EAD card. I intent to continue to work full time with my current employer. I want to work part time with another employer. My H1 is stamped and valid untill end of 2008.
If I use my EAD card for part-time job, does my H1 get invalid?
If yes, do I need to inform my fulltime employer about change in status?
If no, can I travel outside USA with the H1 visa for reentry?
Please help.
If I use my EAD card for part-time job, does my H1 get invalid?
If yes, do I need to inform my fulltime employer about change in status?
If no, can I travel outside USA with the H1 visa for reentry?
Please help.
more...
pictures Kate Beckinsale Wavy Hairstyle
JunRN
05-10 06:39 PM
Yes, as long as the new job is same/similar to job B. The 180 days count is number of calendar days i-485 is pending, not number of days on the job. One may not even be working at all during that 180 days, or even while waiting for i-485 approval however, must have a very good excuse because IOs will be very suspicious. It is not violating any rules though as i-485 is for future employment.
dresses Amy Adams braided hairstyle
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:
more...
makeup ashley olson hairstyles.
Esherido
02-06 01:09 PM
that looks sweet! i like the lines going around like and eye and the red lighting in the center
girlfriend hairstyles ordinary updo. kate
nefrateedi
09-25 04:19 PM
Hi Everyone,
The A# that is listed on my I-485 receipt notice is different from the one listed on my approved I-140. In addition, the number listed on my I-485 receipt notice has only 8 digits instead of 9. From reading various forums, I've heard both sides of the story...some are saying that something like this needs to be corrected, and some others are saying that the A# is just a file number, and eventually gets consolidated.
I called USCIS customer service, but they weren't much help as they couldn't pull up the information in their system.
Any inputs? I'm planning on inquiring about this when I go for fingerprinting. Also curious to know if anyone's A# on their approved I-140 has nine digits, and if the one on the I-485 receipt notice only has 8 digits.
Thanks.
The A# that is listed on my I-485 receipt notice is different from the one listed on my approved I-140. In addition, the number listed on my I-485 receipt notice has only 8 digits instead of 9. From reading various forums, I've heard both sides of the story...some are saying that something like this needs to be corrected, and some others are saying that the A# is just a file number, and eventually gets consolidated.
I called USCIS customer service, but they weren't much help as they couldn't pull up the information in their system.
Any inputs? I'm planning on inquiring about this when I go for fingerprinting. Also curious to know if anyone's A# on their approved I-140 has nine digits, and if the one on the I-485 receipt notice only has 8 digits.
Thanks.
hairstyles Kate Gosselin says her spiky
ThackeG67
07-29 03:53 AM
Me too I'm looking forward to it.
augustus
08-16 09:28 AM
I am seeing people with july 2nd dates getting their checks cashed, and there maybe a quick jump after July 2nd because of the bulletin fiasco we had. And plenty of people have filed after July 17, Could someone tell me if their checks have got cashed? This could be a helpful thread for After 17th filers.
EB3- India
PD- Aug 2005
Application Sent- July 17,reached July 19
Center - Nebraska
EB3- India
PD- Aug 2005
Application Sent- July 17,reached July 19
Center - Nebraska
Blog Feeds
03-07 02:50 PM
The Los Angeles Times reports that the President is pushing Senators Schumer and Graham to get their immigration proposal introduced. But many are skeptical the White House is serious.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/lip-service.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/lip-service.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment