pappu
03-25 09:49 AM
We support all bills and all legislations that help us. Whether its STRIVE act of 2007, or some new version in the House or the new version in the senate or any new name of a bill that helps us.
wallpaper european male hairstyles. best
Drifter
04-06 02:59 PM
A core member has been helping me in this matter. I really have to thank the core for being so responsive and for giving this matter the kind of attention it deserves. There is some progress in this case and the quickness with which the IV Core acted on this and moved the issue forward gives me and my family hope.
We have been patiently waiting in the immigration queue for close to 10 years and finally when we are so close to the end of this long journey become victims of a clerical error which was completely out of our control. IV has provided our family with hope. I thank IV for that
We pray that this issue gets resolved and I hope that no one else has to go thorugh this trying situation.
We have been patiently waiting in the immigration queue for close to 10 years and finally when we are so close to the end of this long journey become victims of a clerical error which was completely out of our control. IV has provided our family with hope. I thank IV for that
We pray that this issue gets resolved and I hope that no one else has to go thorugh this trying situation.
BharatPremi
11-06 11:14 AM
Thanks bro for great information.
however, I have some questions. You say that the officer told you that your AP was approved on Oct 1, 2007. Did you see a LUD change that day in your status. If you did, what did it say. I ask because I got a LUD change on our AP on Nov 2 but the message is still the same as it was when i got the receipt notice. No mention of AP approved.
Ans: Yes, I already mentioned that in my write up. First (and only)LUD change happened for me on 10/1*/2007 and that is the approval date as per lady officer in USCIS. During LUD change message content never changed for me and still it is the same which is as under. so currently I have not received physical AP papers yet and on line status still does not show our AP aaproved yet I found our APs are approved during this infopass appointment.
Receipt Number: LIN*******
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Case received and pending.
September 1* we received your application .....
My recetip date is August 14, and NOtice date is Oct 2, 2007. SO the TExas website states 3 months. Is it 3 months after notice date or receipt date.
I have heard people getting their AP without their online status being changed. Is this true. Anyhows, I have yet to go and do my finger prints. It is scheduled for Nov 21. Maybe they need to wait for finger print to before the AP is approved. or is this not the case.
Anyhows, comments are appreciated.
Thanks
:)
however, I have some questions. You say that the officer told you that your AP was approved on Oct 1, 2007. Did you see a LUD change that day in your status. If you did, what did it say. I ask because I got a LUD change on our AP on Nov 2 but the message is still the same as it was when i got the receipt notice. No mention of AP approved.
Ans: Yes, I already mentioned that in my write up. First (and only)LUD change happened for me on 10/1*/2007 and that is the approval date as per lady officer in USCIS. During LUD change message content never changed for me and still it is the same which is as under. so currently I have not received physical AP papers yet and on line status still does not show our AP aaproved yet I found our APs are approved during this infopass appointment.
Receipt Number: LIN*******
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Case received and pending.
September 1* we received your application .....
My recetip date is August 14, and NOtice date is Oct 2, 2007. SO the TExas website states 3 months. Is it 3 months after notice date or receipt date.
I have heard people getting their AP without their online status being changed. Is this true. Anyhows, I have yet to go and do my finger prints. It is scheduled for Nov 21. Maybe they need to wait for finger print to before the AP is approved. or is this not the case.
Anyhows, comments are appreciated.
Thanks
:)
2011 images Wedge Hairstyle - Most
snathan
07-08 12:17 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
Pineapple
11-16 02:47 PM
Is it really against EEOC guidelines to specify US nationals or GC holders for jobs which do not require security clearance? I mean that specification is so common to job advertisements that I always assumed the law allowed that.. certainly news for me if that is not the case!
Thanks for posting this, GCwaitforever..
Thanks for posting this, GCwaitforever..
ilwaiting
01-31 12:58 PM
This is ridiculous. Looks like, They want to increse the fees to collect money for border security, to build the fence on the border. Pretty sure they wouldnt use this money for speedig up the processing times for applications.
Form No. Current Fee Proposed Fee Difference
I-129 $190 $320 $130
I-131 $170 $305 $135
I-140 $195 $475 $280
I-485 $325 $905 $580
I-765 $180 $340 $160
Form No. Current Fee Proposed Fee Difference
I-129 $190 $320 $130
I-131 $170 $305 $135
I-140 $195 $475 $280
I-485 $325 $905 $580
I-765 $180 $340 $160
more...
Kitiara
02-07 09:50 AM
Either the beautiful princess or the wicked witch. Jury is still out on that one. :P
2010 medium haircuts for women
dsreedhar
01-04 10:56 AM
Applied for EAD and AP together (e-file at TSC center) in the last week of Nov 2010 and got the EAD card yesterday in mail. The validity period is for 2 yrs. The online status for EAD updated accordingly. However there is no status update for AP.
more...
bharol
08-18 02:22 AM
how does one know NC is cleared? do you see an update?
If you were July/Aug filer, it does not matter even if it is not cleared...
...180 day rule, thanks to IV efforts.
If you were July/Aug filer, it does not matter even if it is not cleared...
...180 day rule, thanks to IV efforts.
hair short haircuts 2011 for girls.
gapala
04-16 04:10 PM
That is accurate I have done 10+2+1+3
So this is actually 16 years of education overall and not 14 as suggested by other member. Sorry to ask, could you confirm this again, or did you mean to say 10+3+1? as you said this is accurate about what other member said.
So this is actually 16 years of education overall and not 14 as suggested by other member. Sorry to ask, could you confirm this again, or did you mean to say 10+3+1? as you said this is accurate about what other member said.
more...
hebbar77
05-18 07:07 PM
Hello Hebbar,
:) Very few countries are free of quotas...they have them under one name or another...it's just an age-old human power structure..
The proposal is good, why not try it? What needs to be done?
You made my day!
:) Very few countries are free of quotas...they have them under one name or another...it's just an age-old human power structure..
The proposal is good, why not try it? What needs to be done?
You made my day!
hot Kid Gumby Haircut by Adrian
nagio
05-30 02:19 AM
Done. Thanks. For me and my spouse.
more...
house 2011 formal hairstyles for
chtting2me
10-09 08:53 PM
I am wondering is any one from everest technologies?
tattoo makeup hairstyles 2011 women
bidhanc
12-22 02:59 PM
Hi,
I sent my application on 29th Sept 2010 and have not heard anything yet.
Most of the times I can't get hold of anyone and when I do they keep saying that they are not ready yet! That's very helpful!
God forbid if I have to leave the country due to any emergency, what the heck will I do then?
Sorry didn't want to bore you with this, but what or who did you contact at the embassy?
I can't get hold of anyone at all?
It would be very helpful.
Thanks
NY consulate is even worst than others. After a month of trying to reach them regarding my passport application, they told me they never received my application nor my passport. I had to sent them shipping tracking info and eventually they found my application sitting in a drawer. Never bother to opened it till than. I had to go through some higher level rank person to get my case resolved. The customer rep. phone is always busy, never able to get a hold.. I don't have to visit them for next 10 years,,,, thank GOD..
I sent my application on 29th Sept 2010 and have not heard anything yet.
Most of the times I can't get hold of anyone and when I do they keep saying that they are not ready yet! That's very helpful!
God forbid if I have to leave the country due to any emergency, what the heck will I do then?
Sorry didn't want to bore you with this, but what or who did you contact at the embassy?
I can't get hold of anyone at all?
It would be very helpful.
Thanks
NY consulate is even worst than others. After a month of trying to reach them regarding my passport application, they told me they never received my application nor my passport. I had to sent them shipping tracking info and eventually they found my application sitting in a drawer. Never bother to opened it till than. I had to go through some higher level rank person to get my case resolved. The customer rep. phone is always busy, never able to get a hold.. I don't have to visit them for next 10 years,,,, thank GOD..
more...
pictures pictures Medium Hairstyles
TajMahal
10-01 06:43 PM
July 2nd filer.
Transfered from NSC to CSC. My bad luck. Didn't apply EAD, AP. No news on FP. I heard that CSC processes FP lat than other centers. I know my neighbours got FP notices who filed a month later from NSC.
Transfered from NSC to CSC. My bad luck. Didn't apply EAD, AP. No news on FP. I heard that CSC processes FP lat than other centers. I know my neighbours got FP notices who filed a month later from NSC.
dresses hair emo hairstyles for medium
ragz4u
03-16 01:32 PM
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18845
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee finally broached the controversial subject of the undocumented population on day five of the Committee's markup of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, but deferred any votes on the subject until after next week's congressional recess.
Chairman Specter began the day's proceedings by reiterating that it would be a "colossal mistake" for Senate Majority Leader Frist to bring an immigration bill to the Senate floor that had not been completely vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As background, Senator Frist has threatened to bring his enforcement-only legislation directly to the Senate floor unless the Judiciary Committee produces a bill by March 27. Senator Frist could do this using the seldom employed "Rule 14" procedure that permits him to introduce a bill and bypass the committee process so that it goes directly to the Senate calendar. According to Senate sources, Senator Frist's bill would simply take Chairman Specter's proposal and strip out the guestworker plan and the provisions dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens present in the U.S.
Because Senator Frist apparently will not back off of his deadline, Chairman Specter proposed this morning to continue the Committee's work beyond what was to have been the final day of the markup (today). Unfortunately, the Senate is out on recess next week, leaving tomorrow or Monday, March 27, as the only available options for continued work. Most of the Senators present agreed that meeting on March 27 would make sense, with the exception of Senator Cornyn, who disagreed that bringing the Committee's incomplete bill to the floor would be problematic (clearly an attempt on his part to stave off debate in the Committee on what to do with the undocumented population). However, in a clear rebuke to Senator Cornyn, Chairman Specter responded that the Committee would proceed immediately to debate on the controversial issue of a path to citizenship for the undocumented!
Chairman Specter said that he and Senator Kennedy talked at length yesterday about the issue of the undocumented. He reiterated his concerns about the undocumented workers jumping the line in front of those who have followed the legal channels. He's concerned about 25-year backlogs for 4th preference beneficiaries and other long backlogs. However, he noted his willingness to find a way to put the undocumented on a path to citizenship at the end of the line. Chairman Specter also reiterated that he wants a bill to come out of Committee that can pass the floor and be reconciled with the House bill.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McCain/Kennedy bill will not lead to line-jumping, explaining that the bill's formula would clear backlogs and deal with the lines themselves. In addition, he noted his willingness to accept a 2nd degree amendment to ensure that legal permanent residence would not be granted to the undocumented population until both the current employment-based and family-based backlogs had been cleared. "What really is the alternative," he asked? "Mass deportations? Criminalization and a permanent subclass?"
Senator Kennedy continued by talking eloquently about the pure motives of immigrants who have come to this country, both historically and currently, to make a better life for themselves and their families. He said that we should admire the drive of these people. We should not treat them as criminals but should give them an opportunity. We should bring them out of shadows, have them pay a fine, work, and wait their turn. Senator Kennedy also noted that some 60,000 legal permanent residents currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Senator Kyl noted that no one on the Committee supports enforcement only, adding that his and Senator Cornyn's proposal would provide a "work opportunity," not a punishment. He said that the Specter "gold card" would be just like a green card but without the right to citizenship. He also opined that people waiting in the family-based backlog don't have the right to be in the U.S. now, so letting undocumented aliens get in line would harm those individuals who have been waiting patiently. At one point, he allowed that it might be OK to give a path to citizenship to high skilled workers but not to low skilled workers.
Senator Cornyn associated himself with Senator Kyl's remarks. "We can't accept everyone in the world who wants to come here," he said. And while he professed agreement with Senator Kennedy about the beneficial contributions and benevolent motivations of the undocumented population, he couldn't seem to get past the "law breaking" issue. "The American people won't accept a program to deal with the undocumented if we haven't finished the bill's enforcement titles," he argued. He also defended the Cornyn/Kyl "report to deport" proposal, noting that it is neither a ruse nor impractical. He added that the intention of the proposal is not to strand people outside of the country as some have accused.
Senator Durbin weighed in by stating that the immigration system has been broken for a long while. He recounted stories about important individuals he knows whose parents were undocumented aliens. He stood in support of the McCain/Kennedy proposal, calling it "tough but fair," and reiterated that we should not be criminalizing undocumented status, as both the Chairman's Mark and H.R. 4437 would do.
Senator Graham noted that many people, including many on the Republican side of the aisle, don't even want to debate this complex issue. For them, rounding these immigrants up and deporting them is the only answer. "Such a proposal is simply not feasible," Senator Graham added. He also noted that half of his family likely would not be able to meet the requirements of the McCain/Kennedy legislation, thereby buttressing the argument that it is no easy give away. "While there are lots of people on talk radio complaining about the undocumented, these folks are out there working," he said. "This is not a 'get out of jail free' card." In addition to those who would deport the undocumented population, there are others who would put them all in jail, he continued, adding that this also would not work. He warned Chairman Specter and others that they shouldn't be trying to avoid criticism on this issue, because they're all going to get it. He agreed that the undocumented population should be put in line behind all those currently waiting in the backlogs but does not believe it is appropriate to force them to leave the country in order to take part in the program, as this would break up families.
Senator Feinstein argued that the DHS would be incapable of handling such a massive program. She was also concerned with what would happen to those who apply for the program if they are unable to pass the requisite background checks. "Could people with minor misdemeanors get status,?" she asked. She requested a letter from Senator Kennedy's staff on the issue. Senator Feinstein also returned to the issue of DHS's processing capabilities, asking for additional information on the subject before the issue is brought to a vote.
Senator Specter indicated that he intends to work through the undocumented issue by beginning with the McCain/Kennedy bill and the 2nd degree amendment mentioned above by Senator Kennedy. He also indicated that there is a deal on the table between Senators Cornyn and Kennedy on the temporary worker (future flows) program.
Senator Feinstein brought up the subject of agricultural workers and wanted to know why they weren't included as part of the guestworker program. Senator Kennedy responded that the reason is because Senator Craig, the chief sponsor of AgJobs, would offer it as an amendment on the floor. Senator Brownback opined that they needed to have staff work out the details of any agricultural program.
Chairman Specter then noted that staff would be working out various details during next week's recess, confirmed continuation of the markup on March 27th, and gaveled the meeting to a close.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee finally broached the controversial subject of the undocumented population on day five of the Committee's markup of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, but deferred any votes on the subject until after next week's congressional recess.
Chairman Specter began the day's proceedings by reiterating that it would be a "colossal mistake" for Senate Majority Leader Frist to bring an immigration bill to the Senate floor that had not been completely vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As background, Senator Frist has threatened to bring his enforcement-only legislation directly to the Senate floor unless the Judiciary Committee produces a bill by March 27. Senator Frist could do this using the seldom employed "Rule 14" procedure that permits him to introduce a bill and bypass the committee process so that it goes directly to the Senate calendar. According to Senate sources, Senator Frist's bill would simply take Chairman Specter's proposal and strip out the guestworker plan and the provisions dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens present in the U.S.
Because Senator Frist apparently will not back off of his deadline, Chairman Specter proposed this morning to continue the Committee's work beyond what was to have been the final day of the markup (today). Unfortunately, the Senate is out on recess next week, leaving tomorrow or Monday, March 27, as the only available options for continued work. Most of the Senators present agreed that meeting on March 27 would make sense, with the exception of Senator Cornyn, who disagreed that bringing the Committee's incomplete bill to the floor would be problematic (clearly an attempt on his part to stave off debate in the Committee on what to do with the undocumented population). However, in a clear rebuke to Senator Cornyn, Chairman Specter responded that the Committee would proceed immediately to debate on the controversial issue of a path to citizenship for the undocumented!
Chairman Specter said that he and Senator Kennedy talked at length yesterday about the issue of the undocumented. He reiterated his concerns about the undocumented workers jumping the line in front of those who have followed the legal channels. He's concerned about 25-year backlogs for 4th preference beneficiaries and other long backlogs. However, he noted his willingness to find a way to put the undocumented on a path to citizenship at the end of the line. Chairman Specter also reiterated that he wants a bill to come out of Committee that can pass the floor and be reconciled with the House bill.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McCain/Kennedy bill will not lead to line-jumping, explaining that the bill's formula would clear backlogs and deal with the lines themselves. In addition, he noted his willingness to accept a 2nd degree amendment to ensure that legal permanent residence would not be granted to the undocumented population until both the current employment-based and family-based backlogs had been cleared. "What really is the alternative," he asked? "Mass deportations? Criminalization and a permanent subclass?"
Senator Kennedy continued by talking eloquently about the pure motives of immigrants who have come to this country, both historically and currently, to make a better life for themselves and their families. He said that we should admire the drive of these people. We should not treat them as criminals but should give them an opportunity. We should bring them out of shadows, have them pay a fine, work, and wait their turn. Senator Kennedy also noted that some 60,000 legal permanent residents currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Senator Kyl noted that no one on the Committee supports enforcement only, adding that his and Senator Cornyn's proposal would provide a "work opportunity," not a punishment. He said that the Specter "gold card" would be just like a green card but without the right to citizenship. He also opined that people waiting in the family-based backlog don't have the right to be in the U.S. now, so letting undocumented aliens get in line would harm those individuals who have been waiting patiently. At one point, he allowed that it might be OK to give a path to citizenship to high skilled workers but not to low skilled workers.
Senator Cornyn associated himself with Senator Kyl's remarks. "We can't accept everyone in the world who wants to come here," he said. And while he professed agreement with Senator Kennedy about the beneficial contributions and benevolent motivations of the undocumented population, he couldn't seem to get past the "law breaking" issue. "The American people won't accept a program to deal with the undocumented if we haven't finished the bill's enforcement titles," he argued. He also defended the Cornyn/Kyl "report to deport" proposal, noting that it is neither a ruse nor impractical. He added that the intention of the proposal is not to strand people outside of the country as some have accused.
Senator Durbin weighed in by stating that the immigration system has been broken for a long while. He recounted stories about important individuals he knows whose parents were undocumented aliens. He stood in support of the McCain/Kennedy proposal, calling it "tough but fair," and reiterated that we should not be criminalizing undocumented status, as both the Chairman's Mark and H.R. 4437 would do.
Senator Graham noted that many people, including many on the Republican side of the aisle, don't even want to debate this complex issue. For them, rounding these immigrants up and deporting them is the only answer. "Such a proposal is simply not feasible," Senator Graham added. He also noted that half of his family likely would not be able to meet the requirements of the McCain/Kennedy legislation, thereby buttressing the argument that it is no easy give away. "While there are lots of people on talk radio complaining about the undocumented, these folks are out there working," he said. "This is not a 'get out of jail free' card." In addition to those who would deport the undocumented population, there are others who would put them all in jail, he continued, adding that this also would not work. He warned Chairman Specter and others that they shouldn't be trying to avoid criticism on this issue, because they're all going to get it. He agreed that the undocumented population should be put in line behind all those currently waiting in the backlogs but does not believe it is appropriate to force them to leave the country in order to take part in the program, as this would break up families.
Senator Feinstein argued that the DHS would be incapable of handling such a massive program. She was also concerned with what would happen to those who apply for the program if they are unable to pass the requisite background checks. "Could people with minor misdemeanors get status,?" she asked. She requested a letter from Senator Kennedy's staff on the issue. Senator Feinstein also returned to the issue of DHS's processing capabilities, asking for additional information on the subject before the issue is brought to a vote.
Senator Specter indicated that he intends to work through the undocumented issue by beginning with the McCain/Kennedy bill and the 2nd degree amendment mentioned above by Senator Kennedy. He also indicated that there is a deal on the table between Senators Cornyn and Kennedy on the temporary worker (future flows) program.
Senator Feinstein brought up the subject of agricultural workers and wanted to know why they weren't included as part of the guestworker program. Senator Kennedy responded that the reason is because Senator Craig, the chief sponsor of AgJobs, would offer it as an amendment on the floor. Senator Brownback opined that they needed to have staff work out the details of any agricultural program.
Chairman Specter then noted that staff would be working out various details during next week's recess, confirmed continuation of the markup on March 27th, and gaveled the meeting to a close.
more...
makeup hairstyles funky hairstyle.jpg
guyfromsg
07-10 08:12 PM
Being a big company they may have their own IT dept. If we can find out if they either outsource their IT dept or hire H1-bs than he may not have much to argue..my 2cents.
girlfriend hairstyles for old ladies.
nrk
10-26 08:05 PM
Hi Guys,
I am EB2 I with a priority date of April 2006 (Direct labor applied and approved from employer A, I 140 applied and approved from Employer A, Filed 485 from Employer A itself)
Moved to Employer B using EAD in 2009 January. (Almost after 18 months after getting EAD)
10/15/2009 i called the TSC and asked the representative to know whether my case is pre approved or not. the representative told me that he does not have any of that data and opening a SR will let us know. i opened one SR on the same day.
I got a mail just now, with the following text in it.
"The status of your request is
Your case is on hold because your appear to be inadmissible under the current law
Rather than denying your application based on inadmissibility, we are placing your case on hold while the Department of Homeland security considers additional exercises of the security of Homeland security discretionary exemption authority.
Such an exercise of the exemption authority might allow us to approve the case."
What does this mean, any one has some idea about it.
I am EB2 I with a priority date of April 2006 (Direct labor applied and approved from employer A, I 140 applied and approved from Employer A, Filed 485 from Employer A itself)
Moved to Employer B using EAD in 2009 January. (Almost after 18 months after getting EAD)
10/15/2009 i called the TSC and asked the representative to know whether my case is pre approved or not. the representative told me that he does not have any of that data and opening a SR will let us know. i opened one SR on the same day.
I got a mail just now, with the following text in it.
"The status of your request is
Your case is on hold because your appear to be inadmissible under the current law
Rather than denying your application based on inadmissibility, we are placing your case on hold while the Department of Homeland security considers additional exercises of the security of Homeland security discretionary exemption authority.
Such an exercise of the exemption authority might allow us to approve the case."
What does this mean, any one has some idea about it.
hairstyles david beckham 2011 haircut.
Brightsider
05-31 04:12 PM
Pappu,
I am sure your point is very valid.
At this juncture we are grasping at straws. Here is one more of them.
I am sure your point is very valid.
At this juncture we are grasping at straws. Here is one more of them.
cool_desi_gc
12-17 09:11 PM
Chumki,
My 485 online status says that they have recieved it on Sept 18th.But i posted my app on Jul 18th and i have return reciept that they have recieved it on July 18th.Someone has actually signed the reciept.So what is my RD ?
My 485 online status says that they have recieved it on Sept 18th.But i posted my app on Jul 18th and i have return reciept that they have recieved it on July 18th.Someone has actually signed the reciept.So what is my RD ?
Alabaman
05-22 03:16 PM
DID YOU EVER MOVE WITHOUT REPORTING A CHANGE OF ADDRESS?? IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES, THEN YOU ARE ALSO AN ILLEGAL... YOU QUALIFY FOR A Z VISA!!! YEPEEE!!!
u can easily get an affadavit from someone with a business that says u worked there for a period of x days while ur h1 was with yyy company... that puts u into an illegal category too.
i m growing some tomatoes this summer....maybe i can get additional points if i grow them for 100 days every year and then after another 5 yrs i can get some more points in the new merit based system
u can easily get an affadavit from someone with a business that says u worked there for a period of x days while ur h1 was with yyy company... that puts u into an illegal category too.
i m growing some tomatoes this summer....maybe i can get additional points if i grow them for 100 days every year and then after another 5 yrs i can get some more points in the new merit based system
