freddyCR
August 12th, 2005, 03:51 AM
1234http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/freddyphoto/MISC/IMG_6516-1BW.jpg
wallpaper war of the worlds 1953 martian. the War of the Worlds so
glamzon
05-24 10:39 AM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.1348:
click amendments.
These get updated every while and then when they are introduced . keep monitoring and update the core team if you find something . thanks
click amendments.
These get updated every while and then when they are introduced . keep monitoring and update the core team if you find something . thanks
Templarian
03-09 05:53 PM
:fab:
2011 Scary Movie 4 (2006)
ssksubash
02-14 06:19 PM
HI,
I am in my 7th yr extension of H1B, last time I got the stamping in Ottawa in 2005. I cam e into US on F1 and never got H1B stamping in India. Am I eligible for H1B stamping in Canada for my 8th year or should I go to India to get the stamping done.
Any information is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
I am in my 7th yr extension of H1B, last time I got the stamping in Ottawa in 2005. I cam e into US on F1 and never got H1B stamping in India. Am I eligible for H1B stamping in Canada for my 8th year or should I go to India to get the stamping done.
Any information is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
more...
samwalton
11-18 10:21 AM
Hello
We moved to a new location after filing our 485, EAD and AP petitions. We immediately sent the AR11 forms (by Fedex) and also did the AR 11 form online. Apart from this we updated the addresses for all pending petitions.
The status is as follows:
1. My wife's EAD went to the old address and fortunately USPS forwarded to our new address. However my EAD has not yet reached me though when I check online it looks like it was approved on 1st Oct. How do we track this?
2. I have received the address change confirmations from USCIS for my 485 petition. I have not received the same for my wife and daughter's petitions. Do I have to go and update the address change once again online?
Kindly advice based on your experience.
Regards
We moved to a new location after filing our 485, EAD and AP petitions. We immediately sent the AR11 forms (by Fedex) and also did the AR 11 form online. Apart from this we updated the addresses for all pending petitions.
The status is as follows:
1. My wife's EAD went to the old address and fortunately USPS forwarded to our new address. However my EAD has not yet reached me though when I check online it looks like it was approved on 1st Oct. How do we track this?
2. I have received the address change confirmations from USCIS for my 485 petition. I have not received the same for my wife and daughter's petitions. Do I have to go and update the address change once again online?
Kindly advice based on your experience.
Regards
GCLONGWAIT
04-27 12:54 AM
My sponsoring company received an Audit Letter from INS today. Is this the norm in today's scenerio when one applies for labor for a new Green card process?
How alarming is it? What are its effects on Labor application?
Legal Experts & Anyone gone through the same , pls. respond at the earliest. Thanx in advance
How alarming is it? What are its effects on Labor application?
Legal Experts & Anyone gone through the same , pls. respond at the earliest. Thanx in advance
more...
Blog Feeds
10-23 09:10 AM
The immigration news lately for the Department of Homeland Security has been decidedly downbeat: The GAO issues a scathing report on the DHS border fence initiative. DHS settles a complaint that attacked longstanding and deplorable immigration detention conditions in the basement of the Los Angeles federal building. The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race,Ethnicity & Diversity at U.C. Berkeley Law School releases a damning critique of Hispanic racial profiling in the Criminal Alien Program managed by DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement. With all this bad news, DHS may have overlooked a great proposal that the Department should support if...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/09/the-founders-visa-a-good-idea-in-the-haystack-of-bad-immigration-news.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/09/the-founders-visa-a-good-idea-in-the-haystack-of-bad-immigration-news.html)
2010 of the film, 1953.
snhn
11-22 07:34 PM
Hello,
this is a bit different maybe since it deals with my mom. She was sponsored by my sister. She has been stuck in name check now for about 18 monts. Anyways, she is out of the country. She just left, and now my sister got a letter and appoinment letter for a 2nd finger print. My mother is using her advacne parole and the green card was filed for adjustment of status.
so the questiong is can my sister reschedule the appointment 8 months in the future or can she change the location for finger print to the office in the country where my mother is,
She is in Pakistan right now.
thanks
this is a bit different maybe since it deals with my mom. She was sponsored by my sister. She has been stuck in name check now for about 18 monts. Anyways, she is out of the country. She just left, and now my sister got a letter and appoinment letter for a 2nd finger print. My mother is using her advacne parole and the green card was filed for adjustment of status.
so the questiong is can my sister reschedule the appointment 8 months in the future or can she change the location for finger print to the office in the country where my mother is,
She is in Pakistan right now.
thanks
more...
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
hair The War of the Worlds
Blog Feeds
02-23 12:40 PM
Though he is undoubtedly the most famous athlete Canada has ever produced, hockey legend Wayne Gretzky is now a naturalized American citizen living in the US. Canada hasn't held that against him and gave him the spectacular honor of lighting the Olympic torch in tonight's Winter Olympics Opening Ceremonies in Vancouver.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/immigrant-of-the-day-wayne-gretzky-torchbearer.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/immigrant-of-the-day-wayne-gretzky-torchbearer.html)
more...
softcrowd
06-11 03:01 PM
My company applied for my 140 (Substitute) in Premium processing (before it was stopped) and I recieved an RFE for ability to pay. Company took sometime & responded with Tax returns.
Online status says, response to RFE recieved and the processing resumed. Since mine is a PP, I epxected the result in 15 days...but its more than a month...
So I contacted my employer & he says USCIS asked for "Audited Financial statement". But online status did not change. (Still says, we recieved your response & case processing is resumed).
Is it possible that USCIS just asks for more information in reponse to RFE but still does not update the status?? What I don't understand is - normally USCIS Deny the app if they are not OK with my employer's initial response is n't it? how are they coming back & asking for more & more information??
I am confused!! Please throw light if you know more details...
Online status says, response to RFE recieved and the processing resumed. Since mine is a PP, I epxected the result in 15 days...but its more than a month...
So I contacted my employer & he says USCIS asked for "Audited Financial statement". But online status did not change. (Still says, we recieved your response & case processing is resumed).
Is it possible that USCIS just asks for more information in reponse to RFE but still does not update the status?? What I don't understand is - normally USCIS Deny the app if they are not OK with my employer's initial response is n't it? how are they coming back & asking for more & more information??
I am confused!! Please throw light if you know more details...
hot remake:War of The Worlds
nogc_noproblem
08-16 10:49 AM
Labor, I140 approved and I-485 filed during July-07. Have EAD and AP but never used it. Still on H1B, extended for 3 years based on approved I140 and valid until Dec 2011. With my GC employer all along, employer is applying for LCA now as my new client is located in different state. My questions are:
� Whether there will be any impact on my ongoing GC process if the job description on this new LCA is different?
� If anything goes wrong with this LCA, whether there will be any impact on my existing H1 and eventually on GC process?
� If something wrong happens to my H1, can I still switch to EAD after that?
� What is the process to move from H1B to EAD within the same company, is filing new I-9 with EAD detail is suffice?
Thanks
� Whether there will be any impact on my ongoing GC process if the job description on this new LCA is different?
� If anything goes wrong with this LCA, whether there will be any impact on my existing H1 and eventually on GC process?
� If something wrong happens to my H1, can I still switch to EAD after that?
� What is the process to move from H1B to EAD within the same company, is filing new I-9 with EAD detail is suffice?
Thanks
more...
house WAR OF THE WORLDS (1953)
Blog Feeds
08-05 08:00 PM
ABC News has an interesting piece that discusses the birth tourism controversy and quotes a statistic that actually comes from Lindsey Graham's office. According to the National Center of Health Statistics, just 7,760 mothers report that they live outside the US of more than 4,000,000 births each year. Keep in mind that some of these mothers are actually US citizens who reside abroad but want to have their children in the US. So we're really talking about less than .2% of all births as being this huge problem that suddenly justifies overturning the 14th Amendment.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/one-fifth-of-one-percent.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/one-fifth-of-one-percent.html)
tattoo War of the Worlds 1953 Martian
Blog Feeds
09-15 05:40 PM
Immigration Lawyers Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
The new visa bulletin is out at this link: http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5145.html. Employment-based categories are as follows: EB-1 remains current for all countries; EB-2 remains current, except for India and China which are at May 2006; EB-3 is at Jan. 2005 for all countries, except for India (Jan. 2002), China (Nov. 2003), and Mexico (April 2001); EB-3 other workers is at March 2003 for all countries, except India (Jan. 2002)and Mexico (April 2001); EB-4, religious workers, EB-5, and targeted employment areas and regional centers are all current. Family based petitions are backlogged, with the most recent date at April 2010.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/SrfNMX1f9Gc
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/SrfNMX1f9Gc/october_visa_bulletin.html)
The new visa bulletin is out at this link: http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5145.html. Employment-based categories are as follows: EB-1 remains current for all countries; EB-2 remains current, except for India and China which are at May 2006; EB-3 is at Jan. 2005 for all countries, except for India (Jan. 2002), China (Nov. 2003), and Mexico (April 2001); EB-3 other workers is at March 2003 for all countries, except India (Jan. 2002)and Mexico (April 2001); EB-4, religious workers, EB-5, and targeted employment areas and regional centers are all current. Family based petitions are backlogged, with the most recent date at April 2010.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/SrfNMX1f9Gc
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/SrfNMX1f9Gc/october_visa_bulletin.html)
more...
pictures H.G. Wells#39; War of the Worlds
Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
dresses The War of the Worlds Blu-ray
Macaca
02-17 04:51 PM
The Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law (http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx?committee=4)shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: immigration and naturalization, border security, admission of refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements, claims against the United States, federal charters of incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, non-border enforcement, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.
Democrats
Zoe Lofgren (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=30), Chairman, California, 16th
Luis Gutierrez (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=97), Illinois, 4th
Howard L. Berman (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=7), California, 28th
Sheila Jackson Lee (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=31), Texas, 18th
Maxine Waters (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=32), California, 35th
Martin T. Meehan (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=33), Massachusetts, 5th
William D. Delahunt (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=34), Massachusetts, 10th
Linda T. S�nchez (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=39), California, 39th
Artur Davis (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=100), Alabama , 7th
Keith Ellison (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=101), Minnesota, 5th
Republicans
Steve King (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=22), Ranking Member, Iowa, 5th
Elton Gallegly (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=10), California, 24th
Bob Goodlatte (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=11), Virginia, 6th
Daniel E. Lungren (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=50), California, 3rd
J. Randy Forbes (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=21), Virginia, 4th
Louie Gohmert (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=55), Texas, 1st
Democrats
Zoe Lofgren (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=30), Chairman, California, 16th
Luis Gutierrez (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=97), Illinois, 4th
Howard L. Berman (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=7), California, 28th
Sheila Jackson Lee (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=31), Texas, 18th
Maxine Waters (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=32), California, 35th
Martin T. Meehan (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=33), Massachusetts, 5th
William D. Delahunt (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=34), Massachusetts, 10th
Linda T. S�nchez (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=39), California, 39th
Artur Davis (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=100), Alabama , 7th
Keith Ellison (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=101), Minnesota, 5th
Republicans
Steve King (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=22), Ranking Member, Iowa, 5th
Elton Gallegly (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=10), California, 24th
Bob Goodlatte (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=11), Virginia, 6th
Daniel E. Lungren (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=50), California, 3rd
J. Randy Forbes (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=21), Virginia, 4th
Louie Gohmert (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=55), Texas, 1st
more...
makeup #1 - The War of the Worlds
Blog Feeds
10-19 09:10 AM
Someone thought this was okay?
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/target-apologizes-for-immigrant-halloween-costume.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/target-apologizes-for-immigrant-halloween-costume.html)
girlfriend quot;War of the Worldsquot;, 1953.
JainQ
03-13 12:14 PM
Hello:
I'm Canadian who've worked in US for the same employer under L1 Blanket for almost 3 years, my current L1B will expire at July 2011. I heard a lot of L1 extension get rejected recently, I wonder if I can have a fresh L1B petition (I-129) with another 2 year, then go to US-Canada border and turn around with the fresh L1B petition, so I can stay in US for anther 2 years.
My only concern is that, do I qualify the '1 year working at foreign branch within 3 years prior to admission to US' requirement? considering I've been in US almost 3 years already.
Thank you for your help.
I'm Canadian who've worked in US for the same employer under L1 Blanket for almost 3 years, my current L1B will expire at July 2011. I heard a lot of L1 extension get rejected recently, I wonder if I can have a fresh L1B petition (I-129) with another 2 year, then go to US-Canada border and turn around with the fresh L1B petition, so I can stay in US for anther 2 years.
My only concern is that, do I qualify the '1 year working at foreign branch within 3 years prior to admission to US' requirement? considering I've been in US almost 3 years already.
Thank you for your help.
hairstyles quot;War of the Worlds!quot;
r2d2
02-26 04:08 PM
Hello,
Is there a limit of time a GC holder can remain unemployed if GC obtained through employment and will that have a negative impact on the naturalization process?
Thank you
Is there a limit of time a GC holder can remain unemployed if GC obtained through employment and will that have a negative impact on the naturalization process?
Thank you
martinvisalaw
07-31 12:24 PM
You may be eligible. CIS usually requires 4 years of university-level education for a degree, or 3 years experience for every one year missing from a 4-year degree. An educational evaluator could say for certain if you have the equivalent of a US bachelor's degree.
anindya1234
07-02 06:52 AM
For item 16 what should be the CFR code: is it (c)(9) or (c)(0)(9), since there are 3 parentheses...please help!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment