chanduv23
04-17 08:56 PM
When I click the link above, I get page cannot be found. can you please tell us what is the issue regarding this???
welcome to iv smsrao ;) ;)
welcome to iv smsrao ;) ;)
wallpaper justin bieber haircut 2011
Zulagh
07-24 07:12 AM
Hello?
I entered U.S with B1/B2 visa and got changed into F1 status. While F1 status got approved
I departed U.S due to family matter.
Now I'd like to make it sure that my B1/B2 visa is still valid,because I plan to visit to my friend who lives in U.S.
How to check my B1/B2 visa could be remained still valid?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards Zulagh.
I entered U.S with B1/B2 visa and got changed into F1 status. While F1 status got approved
I departed U.S due to family matter.
Now I'd like to make it sure that my B1/B2 visa is still valid,because I plan to visit to my friend who lives in U.S.
How to check my B1/B2 visa could be remained still valid?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards Zulagh.
summersky
04-08 05:19 PM
Hi,
I received an RFE for proof of maintaining legal US residence in the form of I-797 forms of H1b extension or EADs etc. What was surprising is that we had not filed a medical exam with the original 485 application as we couldnt get an appointment in time before the retrogression and thus have been waiting for an RFE for the same. Yet they have not asked for it.
Can we (in addition to providing the required docs for the RFE), send the medical exam sealed envelope (obtained later but within the past year) even though it wasnt requested yet? The USCIS provided envelope is of course too small to put everything into but we plan to attach it to the couriered docs. Does this sound reasonable?
thanks
I received an RFE for proof of maintaining legal US residence in the form of I-797 forms of H1b extension or EADs etc. What was surprising is that we had not filed a medical exam with the original 485 application as we couldnt get an appointment in time before the retrogression and thus have been waiting for an RFE for the same. Yet they have not asked for it.
Can we (in addition to providing the required docs for the RFE), send the medical exam sealed envelope (obtained later but within the past year) even though it wasnt requested yet? The USCIS provided envelope is of course too small to put everything into but we plan to attach it to the couriered docs. Does this sound reasonable?
thanks
2011 makeup justin bieber haircut
Seek_Gc
11-02 06:06 PM
I have eb3 -2002 PD . is it possible if my wife applies labor and file 140 with my Priority date . ? Both me and my wife's 485 is pending .
more...
vali
03-30 07:36 AM
I'm in the 8th year of H1-B, BEC priority date 04/2001, just got a notice that the case was closed ?? and the lawyer is working to reopen the case.
I have now a very good opportunity to work for another company, huge pay and benefits, a lot of pressure from this company to work for them.
Pls who can answer 2 small questions:
1. Do I have a chance to work for this company?
2. It makes a difference if I'm currently in NJ and this new company is in Utah - thinking that maybe they are not so many applicants in that state? Just for the LC processing speed?
Thanks a lot.
I have now a very good opportunity to work for another company, huge pay and benefits, a lot of pressure from this company to work for them.
Pls who can answer 2 small questions:
1. Do I have a chance to work for this company?
2. It makes a difference if I'm currently in NJ and this new company is in Utah - thinking that maybe they are not so many applicants in that state? Just for the LC processing speed?
Thanks a lot.
delhirocks
06-26 04:19 PM
Please use the search function, this topic has been discussed to death.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1243&page=4&highlight=birth+certificate
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1243&page=4&highlight=birth+certificate
more...
immiblues
05-14 04:09 PM
I am paranoid about losing my GC with me since I have on more than one occasion left misplaced my wallet, or left it at a restaurant, friends place, etc. Thankfully it has been returned to me with all contents intact and untouched every time. I do know that my luck will eventually run out so my question is this. Can I carry a photocopy of my GC instead and probably leave the original locked up in a firesafe at home? (I do not live in AZ, BTW)
2010 justin bieber haircut pictures
pappu
04-13 02:32 PM
I have some experience and my wife has some.(We already have got our gc but I am glad to help)
drak70
Thanks
Pls send a PM or email to pdakwala
drak70
Thanks
Pls send a PM or email to pdakwala
more...
Blog Feeds
05-17 12:50 PM
Years of congressional inaction and paralysis on immigration reform have created an untenable situation that, depending on which �side of the fence� one sits on the Arizona immigration law debate, has either forced the Arizona legislature to take necessary action or permitted overzealous lawmakers to trump federal authority. And while a constitutional challenge of the law will most likely result in its demise, the immigration debate will not abate until such time that a bi-partisan comprehensive immigration reform bill is passed by Congress. In the interim, one can only conjecture what effect the Arizona law will have on legal immigrants...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/04/arizonas-new-immigration-law-the-proof-will-be-in-its-enforcement.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/04/arizonas-new-immigration-law-the-proof-will-be-in-its-enforcement.html)
hair 2011 justin bieber haircut
webm
09-23 03:23 PM
UH! Interesting..Why is that difference this time and did Mumbai visa mistakenly has put China EB3 date? But 'i hope US Visa bulletin Oct09 they will correct it to 22FEB02 for India EB3?..Let's pray!
Guru's..please comment.
Guru's..please comment.
more...
BharatPremi
11-07 12:31 PM
:pif DOL == funeral house
then
USCIS == Frying Pan :)
then
USCIS == Frying Pan :)
hot Teen superstar Justin Bieber#39;s
Macaca
04-27 09:43 AM
Sen. Luddite Strikes Again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602257.html) -- Once more, a mystery Republican blocks electronic filing for Senate candidates, Friday, April 27, 2007
JUST AS she did on April 17, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to call for unanimous consent on a common-sense bill that would require candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically. And just as he or she did on April 17, Sen. Ima Luddite (R-Who Knows Where) voiced opposition. This time the mouthpiece was Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). "On behalf of the Republican side," he said, "I object." We object to the obstruction.
Honestly, what is the big deal here? Filing campaign finance reports electronically has been standard operating procedure for candidates for the House of Representatives and the White House for years -- as it has been for political parties, political action committees and "527" groups. Yet Senate candidates are still trudging down to the Senate Office of Public Records with paper copies of their reports, which are then passed along to the Federal Election Commission, which sends them to a vendor that punches in the information and zaps it back to the FEC electronically. That finally makes them widely available, sometimes too late for voters to see who's donating to whom and how the money is being spent. With this seeming fear of modernity, it's a wonder the Senate isn't calculating budgets with an abacus. Or is it a fear of disclosure?
After the bill was blocked, Ms. Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said, "It is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be." It is very hard for us, too. Sen. Luddite -- whoever he or she may be -- should come out of the shadows and explain the irrational fear that is keeping the Senate from joining the rest of us in the 21st century. Senator anonymous -- Another Day, Another Hold On Finance Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602249.html) By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, April 27, 2007
Sen. Anonymous struck again yesterday.
The infamous unnamed senator (or senators) has for more than a week blocked passage of legislation that would require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically.
Electronic filings would make the names of campaign donors readily available -- it's how members of the House and presidential candidates have been doing it for years. When Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) first brought the bill to the floor last week, though, he was told that an unnamed lawmaker objected.
Long-standing Senate custom allows the objection of a single senator to stop a bill in its tracks -- it's known as a secret hold. A measure that passed the Senate earlier this year, and awaits a House vote, would eliminate the practice.
The hold unleashed a torrent of activity on the Internet, as bloggers tried to flush out the identity of the senator responsible for the hold. But after an onslaught of phone calls to Senate offices, the bloggers have no answer. No one owned up to being the culprit.
Yesterday, the bill's sponsor tried again. And again, the Republican floor leader objected. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he is sure the name of the secret senator is known "in the cloakroom," but he said that misses the point.
"A hold can't stop something from coming to the floor," Don Stewart said. "It can only stop it from being pushed through without a full and open debate on the bill."
That's true -- sponsors had been trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent, which does not permit amendment or debate. But Feingold told the liberal blog Daily Kos that the path was typical for a bill with 35 bipartisan co-sponsors that did not elicit a single objection in committee.
Writing on the blog yesterday, Feingold said: "The fact is that someone anonymously blocked the bill, . . . that person has made no effort to resolve his or her concerns with us, and the Republican leadership won't even tell us who that person is."
JUST AS she did on April 17, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to call for unanimous consent on a common-sense bill that would require candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically. And just as he or she did on April 17, Sen. Ima Luddite (R-Who Knows Where) voiced opposition. This time the mouthpiece was Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). "On behalf of the Republican side," he said, "I object." We object to the obstruction.
Honestly, what is the big deal here? Filing campaign finance reports electronically has been standard operating procedure for candidates for the House of Representatives and the White House for years -- as it has been for political parties, political action committees and "527" groups. Yet Senate candidates are still trudging down to the Senate Office of Public Records with paper copies of their reports, which are then passed along to the Federal Election Commission, which sends them to a vendor that punches in the information and zaps it back to the FEC electronically. That finally makes them widely available, sometimes too late for voters to see who's donating to whom and how the money is being spent. With this seeming fear of modernity, it's a wonder the Senate isn't calculating budgets with an abacus. Or is it a fear of disclosure?
After the bill was blocked, Ms. Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said, "It is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be." It is very hard for us, too. Sen. Luddite -- whoever he or she may be -- should come out of the shadows and explain the irrational fear that is keeping the Senate from joining the rest of us in the 21st century. Senator anonymous -- Another Day, Another Hold On Finance Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602249.html) By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, April 27, 2007
Sen. Anonymous struck again yesterday.
The infamous unnamed senator (or senators) has for more than a week blocked passage of legislation that would require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically.
Electronic filings would make the names of campaign donors readily available -- it's how members of the House and presidential candidates have been doing it for years. When Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) first brought the bill to the floor last week, though, he was told that an unnamed lawmaker objected.
Long-standing Senate custom allows the objection of a single senator to stop a bill in its tracks -- it's known as a secret hold. A measure that passed the Senate earlier this year, and awaits a House vote, would eliminate the practice.
The hold unleashed a torrent of activity on the Internet, as bloggers tried to flush out the identity of the senator responsible for the hold. But after an onslaught of phone calls to Senate offices, the bloggers have no answer. No one owned up to being the culprit.
Yesterday, the bill's sponsor tried again. And again, the Republican floor leader objected. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he is sure the name of the secret senator is known "in the cloakroom," but he said that misses the point.
"A hold can't stop something from coming to the floor," Don Stewart said. "It can only stop it from being pushed through without a full and open debate on the bill."
That's true -- sponsors had been trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent, which does not permit amendment or debate. But Feingold told the liberal blog Daily Kos that the path was typical for a bill with 35 bipartisan co-sponsors that did not elicit a single objection in committee.
Writing on the blog yesterday, Feingold said: "The fact is that someone anonymously blocked the bill, . . . that person has made no effort to resolve his or her concerns with us, and the Republican leadership won't even tell us who that person is."
more...
house new justin bieber haircut pictures. justin bieber haircut new look
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 ...
tattoo justin bieber 2011 haircut.
pappu
05-23 08:24 AM
Please do not start new threads for every comment these days. Its tough to manage threads and it gets confusing. lets stick to CIR discussion and action alert threads these days for any comment and discussions we may want to do on CIR.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
pictures Justin Bieber has really made
edd
11-20 02:52 PM
Hello friends,
Would really appreciate if someone can share some information on this topic.
My Labor has been approved as software Engineer in current job, even though all responsibilities are that of Database Administrator.
I am planning to invoke AC21 and my new job responsibilities are an exact match with my current labor, but, the title is Database administrator.
Is there any risk involved in it ?
Any input is greatly appreciated...
Thanks,
Would really appreciate if someone can share some information on this topic.
My Labor has been approved as software Engineer in current job, even though all responsibilities are that of Database Administrator.
I am planning to invoke AC21 and my new job responsibilities are an exact match with my current labor, but, the title is Database administrator.
Is there any risk involved in it ?
Any input is greatly appreciated...
Thanks,
dresses justin bieber hairstyle back.
Blog Feeds
07-04 07:30 PM
Leave it to comedian Stephen Colbert to send home the point that comprehensive immigration reform - particularly plans to legalize millions of farm workers - will not result in Americans losing jobs. From the AP:In a tongue-in-cheek call for immigration reform, farm workers are teaming up with comedian Stephen Colbert to challenge unemployed Americans: Come on, take our jobs. Farm workers are tired of being blamed by politicians and anti-immigrant activists for taking work that should go to Americans and dragging down the economy, said Arturo Rodriguez, the president of the United Farm Workers of America. So the group is...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/colbert-come-on-americans-take-our-farmworker-jobs.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/colbert-come-on-americans-take-our-farmworker-jobs.html)
more...
makeup tattoo justin bieber haircut new justin bieber haircut new haircut.
maverick80
02-13 02:12 AM
But it will take 5-6 (or more years), I've heard.
**I'm not a lawyer, so do consult your attorney.
**I'm not a lawyer, so do consult your attorney.
girlfriend justin bieber hairstyle new.
Blog Feeds
07-22 04:20 PM
Others have suggested this, but we're now hearing that Majority Leader Reid is looking at trying to get a DREAM Act vote before the November election. According to Roll Call (subscription required): In an interview with La Opinion, the Nevada Democrat said he is largely leaving it up to reform advocates to tell him when a comprehensive bill is no longer viable and that the Senate should instead move to the narrower DREAM Act. After backers of a comprehensive bill say �that they feel we cannot get [comprehensive immigration reform] done this year � and the reason why we cannot...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/reid-considering-dream-act-vote-before-election.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/reid-considering-dream-act-vote-before-election.html)
hairstyles justin bieber haircut 2011
reddymjm
03-12 07:40 AM
Congratulations and good luck.
Please contribute. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=325844
Please contribute. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=325844
fedekorcho
09-29 12:57 PM
Hi i've been reading the forum for a while now and I hope that you guys can help me out. Like most people i have more questions than answers.
I just got my i140 approved (Sept 24,2008 or so).
The LC was file around Apr/Jun '07 so i would assume this is the Priority date correct?
My lawyer tells me that while this is great, we still have to wait for visa numbers to become available to file the 485. Any suggestions on when is this gonna happen?
I know that this is somewhat linked to the visa bulletin ... how should i read it to understand in a few words, when is my time?
Once i've filed i485 how long does USCIS takes to process it?
On the other hand, i'm quite anxious about changing jobs. If I do, do I waste all this time invested in the process? any other way around that?
It seems like no lawyer wants to provide a straight enough answer. I know it's a lot of questions but i really appreciate it.
THANX A LOT!
I just got my i140 approved (Sept 24,2008 or so).
The LC was file around Apr/Jun '07 so i would assume this is the Priority date correct?
My lawyer tells me that while this is great, we still have to wait for visa numbers to become available to file the 485. Any suggestions on when is this gonna happen?
I know that this is somewhat linked to the visa bulletin ... how should i read it to understand in a few words, when is my time?
Once i've filed i485 how long does USCIS takes to process it?
On the other hand, i'm quite anxious about changing jobs. If I do, do I waste all this time invested in the process? any other way around that?
It seems like no lawyer wants to provide a straight enough answer. I know it's a lot of questions but i really appreciate it.
THANX A LOT!
chanduv23
09-16 10:23 AM
Do you know what is team spirit?
Each and everyone contributes for their own cause and collectively contributes for the cause of the community.
IV has built the great platform for you. IV has created all opportunities for you to stand up and speak for yourself.
Everyone can achieve results by working together as a team.
Please start looking beyond your cocoon - you must come out of your closets and show your soladirity.
Come on folks IV is nothing but you. You can make the difference
Each and everyone contributes for their own cause and collectively contributes for the cause of the community.
IV has built the great platform for you. IV has created all opportunities for you to stand up and speak for yourself.
Everyone can achieve results by working together as a team.
Please start looking beyond your cocoon - you must come out of your closets and show your soladirity.
Come on folks IV is nothing but you. You can make the difference
No comments:
Post a Comment