gxr
11-23 07:16 PM
Got LUD on I-485 one month after EAD/AP approval. What could this mean?
I got a soft LUD with no change in case status on I-485. PD is July 2006.
-gxr
I got a soft LUD with no change in case status on I-485. PD is July 2006.
-gxr
wallpaper Several wildfires have been
sargon
10-20 11:51 AM
please reply to linked thread.
Macaca
11-14 09:30 PM
Congress Needs Both Comity and Accomplishments (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.27104,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call, November 14, 2007
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
2011 Texas Burning! Wildfires Seen
adnan_vijay
04-28 08:32 PM
F2B
my priority date is current.
all documents/info mailed to NVC
NVC got my documents for 1 month
I am considering to email the NVC to check on the status of my case.
Should I email the NVC to check now (after waiting for 1 month) or wait another month (hence I would have waited 2 months) to check with the NVC on my status?
:confused:
How many here are in the same case as me? F2B?
After you mailed all documents/info to the NVC, how long did you waited before the NVC reply?
:confused:
my priority date is current.
all documents/info mailed to NVC
NVC got my documents for 1 month
I am considering to email the NVC to check on the status of my case.
Should I email the NVC to check now (after waiting for 1 month) or wait another month (hence I would have waited 2 months) to check with the NVC on my status?
:confused:
How many here are in the same case as me? F2B?
After you mailed all documents/info to the NVC, how long did you waited before the NVC reply?
:confused:
more...
Blog Feeds
11-01 01:10 AM
Former EBay CEO Meg Whitman is one of the leading contenders for the GOP nomination to succeed Arnold Schwarzeneger as governor of California. She's also just shown a little courage and made clear that she supports immigration reform that includes a path to legalization for the country's illegal immigrants. While the majority of voters in the state - indeed, across the country - support what Whitman is advocating, winning a GOP primary and being pro-immigration could be tougher.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/california-republican-governor-candidate-supports-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/california-republican-governor-candidate-supports-immigration-reform.html)
boston_gc
04-14 06:39 PM
Does anyone know when house/senate going to take any action on EB retrogression? Or may be my guess is as good as anyone's??
more...
ncmahesh
05-02 03:23 PM
My friends h1b got rejected 2years back , he once again applied for new one in this fin year from diffrent company , does old petion will effect the new one, as he not shown th eold one while filing the new one
2010 Texas+wildfires+from+space
kaps
06-13 10:43 PM
Hi all,
When started working for Company A it used to operated from 2 diffrent locations Newjersy ,New hampshire (Excutive office).
My Company applied Labor from NH in March 2005 (before perm).6 months back my case was moved to New York regional center ( i am not sure why it is moved to NY insted of newark NJ).
Recently they closed (in April 2010) the NH Branch .
What will happen to my green card ..? (labor is applied for NH location)
When i check with my employer he is saying NH location is Executive office it will not have any impact .
if reuqired he is ready open office in NH with new address
What should i Do...? i am totally in confusion state .. and now my dates current from july ,2010.
When started working for Company A it used to operated from 2 diffrent locations Newjersy ,New hampshire (Excutive office).
My Company applied Labor from NH in March 2005 (before perm).6 months back my case was moved to New York regional center ( i am not sure why it is moved to NY insted of newark NJ).
Recently they closed (in April 2010) the NH Branch .
What will happen to my green card ..? (labor is applied for NH location)
When i check with my employer he is saying NH location is Executive office it will not have any impact .
if reuqired he is ready open office in NH with new address
What should i Do...? i am totally in confusion state .. and now my dates current from july ,2010.
more...
hpandey
06-10 11:44 AM
I think you can't apply more than six months in advance from the date your H1 is expiring.
I guess anytime August onwards should be good .
I guess anytime August onwards should be good .
hair Texas Burning! Wildfires Seen
amitga
06-05 04:49 PM
EB2 - ROW has 5000+ cases pending = No Spill over:(
more...
fatjoe
10-18 11:11 AM
Is there any body who have I485 filed at TSC and EAD and AP filed at NSC. If it is so, will that create problem in getting that EAD card? Since, they check 485 filing for EAD card production. Please advice.
hot View of Texas Wildfires.
lelica32
02-07 10:17 AM
Hi,
I have a question:
Can a Employer who have a smoll business, a Residential Care Facility with 6 Elderly, to apply for me for a H1B Visa?. He need me as a social service Manager, with a bachelor degree.
Lelica
I have a question:
Can a Employer who have a smoll business, a Residential Care Facility with 6 Elderly, to apply for me for a H1B Visa?. He need me as a social service Manager, with a bachelor degree.
Lelica
more...
house Visible Earth: Fires in Texas
insight08
01-14 09:47 PM
In 2002, I left my employer(A) and joined another company(B). New employer applied for my h1b and in 3 months we got an RFE. Coincidentally, I did not like that job and just left that employer(B) to join the previous employer(A).Never tried to get the h1b reciept from. Now that company is folded and there is no information about that company(B). Later that year, company B gave me a W2 for 3 months pay which I had to file later that year.
While applying for 485 in june 2007, in mad rush I had to fill up G-325 form and I did not write anything about working for company(B) for 3 months. Rather I mentioned that I worked for Company A thru 2002.
Thanks in advance for your help. Lazycis, UN and any other gurus , please help!!!
Could USCIS find that out? If so, am I in trouble? How to overcome this situation?
While applying for 485 in june 2007, in mad rush I had to fill up G-325 form and I did not write anything about working for company(B) for 3 months. Rather I mentioned that I worked for Company A thru 2002.
Thanks in advance for your help. Lazycis, UN and any other gurus , please help!!!
Could USCIS find that out? If so, am I in trouble? How to overcome this situation?
tattoo views of Texas wildfires
monkeyfresh
11-14 05:28 PM
I am available to work on a freelance basis, and very enthusiastic about creating interesting and unique Flash based projects. I have extensive experience in working in a freelance environment as I've been making my living as a freelance Flash developer for two years.
Please feel free to visit my web site to attain a thorough understanding of my capabilities.
dubko productions (http://www.dubko.com)
Thank you
Please feel free to visit my web site to attain a thorough understanding of my capabilities.
dubko productions (http://www.dubko.com)
Thank you
more...
pictures During Texas Wildfires
rajahmundry
09-08 12:11 AM
Yes, They are open on Saturday. They close on Monday.
I have been there recently.
You just need to walk with your passport.
I have been there recently.
You just need to walk with your passport.
dresses the Texas wildfires have
Blog Feeds
04-05 09:30 AM
USCIS has not extended its temporary accommodation for delays in the labor condition application (LCA) process. Earlier, USCIS agreed to accept H-1B petitions without a certified LCA, in certain situations, for a limited time. This exception was available from November 5, 2009 to March 9, 2010. The USCIS has declined to extend this exception. Accordingly, all H-1B petitions must be filed with the certified LCA otherwise USCIS will deny the H-1B petition or extension.
Hence, it again is necessary to have an Approved LCA in place for the proper location at the time of the H-1B filing. The reason the exception was not extended is that the DOL assured USCIS that LCAs are being processed within the required seven-day processing time. The DOL, in fact, stated that LCAs are being processed within four to five days which is in fact true as well. It is our suggestion to plan accordingly.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/03/lca_needs_to_be_certified_agai.html)
Hence, it again is necessary to have an Approved LCA in place for the proper location at the time of the H-1B filing. The reason the exception was not extended is that the DOL assured USCIS that LCAs are being processed within the required seven-day processing time. The DOL, in fact, stated that LCAs are being processed within four to five days which is in fact true as well. It is our suggestion to plan accordingly.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/03/lca_needs_to_be_certified_agai.html)
more...
makeup state of Texas, where fire
jelo
04-21 04:16 PM
Hello friends
I have filed the renewal of EAD (based on pening I485) with Texas service center in July 2008. My case has been moved to the regional office in dec 2008 (the notice said for faster processing :)).
Took the infopass in Jan 2009 and the IO could not locate my application at the center but contacted the Texas and said my application waiting on background check.
Contacted the senator. Now they can find my application in regional center.
But they gave the same reason as my background check is pending. They told the senator that they can not discuss any further details.
However the Texas service center says my background check came clean long back.
Do they do background checks for renewing the EAD application?
Can they wait on any background check for 10 months to give a document that is valid for 1/2 years?
what else can I do?
I have filed the renewal of EAD (based on pening I485) with Texas service center in July 2008. My case has been moved to the regional office in dec 2008 (the notice said for faster processing :)).
Took the infopass in Jan 2009 and the IO could not locate my application at the center but contacted the Texas and said my application waiting on background check.
Contacted the senator. Now they can find my application in regional center.
But they gave the same reason as my background check is pending. They told the senator that they can not discuss any further details.
However the Texas service center says my background check came clean long back.
Do they do background checks for renewing the EAD application?
Can they wait on any background check for 10 months to give a document that is valid for 1/2 years?
what else can I do?
girlfriend Next. Dry winds hamper efforts
kirupa
11-02 09:42 PM
Added!
hairstyles A wildfire threatens a house
sabgau
04-06 11:06 AM
I recently got my H1 3 yr extension based on I-140 approval, I want to change my job to company B but my employer Company A says that he will have to revoke the I-140(as per company attorneys), Will this affect my H1 extension(as in will I be out of status?) and can I retain my PD?
Also does anyone know a good lawyer I can consult over the phone?
Thanks.
Also does anyone know a good lawyer I can consult over the phone?
Thanks.
johnggberg
07-19 07:23 PM
may be eb2 in 2002 and eb3 somewhere 2001
ngopikrishnan
11-22 02:04 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102419.html
No comments:
Post a Comment