Blog Feeds
04-24 10:20 PM
The White House today announced the appointment of Cuban-born attorney Alejandro Maryorkas as the nation's new Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Congratulations to Mr. Mayorkas on his appointment. President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals today: Alejandro Mayorkas, Nominee for Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security Mayorkas is currently a partner at O'Melveny and Myers, and previously served as the United States Attorney for the Central District of California. As a litigation partner at O'Melveny, Mr. Mayorkas represents Fortune 100 and other companies in their highest profile and most complex and...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/04/immigrant-of-the-day-alejandro-mayorkas-your-new-uscis-director.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/04/immigrant-of-the-day-alejandro-mayorkas-your-new-uscis-director.html)
wallpaper to wear shoes with wings?
Horace Jones
07-15 09:12 AM
I think not appearing for the interview was a mistake! Hopefully it was not a mistake that costs him too much, though. Who is the consultant, exactly?
CRAZYMONK
03-11 09:17 AM
You need to file I-824 to get a duplicate I-797
2011 Wearing Wings
gc_rip
06-14 01:15 AM
While filing I-485 do I have to choose which I-140 and PD to be used. Need your advise which one should I use,
1. I-140 approved with details as: PERM LC (EB3, PD Dec 2006).
2. I-140 pending (just filed) with details regular LC (EB3, PD Nov 2004).
Choices are:
A. Just file 485 with 140 with earlier PD(option2 ), and let both 140 and 485 continue.
B. File 485 with approved 140
C. Convert pending 140 into premium, and file 485. Is the extra $1000 justified for this?
Thanks in advance.
1. I-140 approved with details as: PERM LC (EB3, PD Dec 2006).
2. I-140 pending (just filed) with details regular LC (EB3, PD Nov 2004).
Choices are:
A. Just file 485 with 140 with earlier PD(option2 ), and let both 140 and 485 continue.
B. File 485 with approved 140
C. Convert pending 140 into premium, and file 485. Is the extra $1000 justified for this?
Thanks in advance.
more...
keerthisagar
07-16 01:08 PM
Can anyone explain how the spillover works and why eb3 is not moving.
Skelerex
07-11 04:21 PM
So, This is a very simple tee i came up with. I figured i would make one relating to Kirupa, and its also a great way to get Kirupa noticed all over the world. Not the best one ive seen on here, but i just wanted to get it out.
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2746/kirupatdc102010.gif (http://img3.imageshack.us/i/kirupatdc102010.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2746/kirupatdc102010.gif (http://img3.imageshack.us/i/kirupatdc102010.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
more...
seawise
05-29 01:09 PM
Indeed i was thinking about signing up before, anyway i signed up at last..thanks..
2010 Salvador Dali, Hermes, 1981
hirs
07-23 06:08 AM
Another one - hope you like it...
http://www.xn--hrlin-gra.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shirt_peacekids_haerlin.jpg
http://www.xn--hrlin-gra.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shirt_peacekids_haerlin.jpg
http://www.xn--hrlin-gra.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shirt_peacekids_haerlin.jpg
http://www.xn--hrlin-gra.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shirt_peacekids_haerlin.jpg
more...
gmb
03-03 11:49 PM
Yes, this is confirmed by a USCIS memo in Dec 2006. Here is the link from USCIS website
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/PeriodsofAdm120506.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/PeriodsofAdm120506.pdf
hair Max Kibardin - Shoe Booties
Axilleus
09-28 12:27 PM
Hi everyone
I just got off the phone with USCIS and I thought I should share this with you. I received an appointment notice regarding fingerprints (for 10/20/07) and I called USCIS to ask if I can reschedule it for an earlier date. They said that I could go to the local application support center (the same location that is on the appointment notice) any Wednesday and ask for service at that time. That way I don't have to wait 3.5 weeks just to get the fingerprints taken and I'll probably get my EAD by then.
I hope this works out for me.
If anybody had such experience, please share.
Thanks
I just got off the phone with USCIS and I thought I should share this with you. I received an appointment notice regarding fingerprints (for 10/20/07) and I called USCIS to ask if I can reschedule it for an earlier date. They said that I could go to the local application support center (the same location that is on the appointment notice) any Wednesday and ask for service at that time. That way I don't have to wait 3.5 weeks just to get the fingerprints taken and I'll probably get my EAD by then.
I hope this works out for me.
If anybody had such experience, please share.
Thanks
more...
bkarnik
04-04 11:56 AM
Can you provide a link to the bulletin?
Any comments abt the dates?
Any comments abt the dates?
hot Hermes II Pro Keds High Top
validIV
04-30 10:33 AM
I believe some lawyers still do 245(i). The fee is $1k. Talk to an immigration lawyer or google "245 (i)"
more...
house red wings spring 2010
rvpg
11-06 08:32 PM
I have visa stamp in the name of previous employer and I 797 from current employer. I have traveled with these and had no problems at re-entry.
But previous employer has completed processing of my H1B cancellation. Can I still re-enter with visa stamp in the name of previous employer?
Thanks!
But previous employer has completed processing of my H1B cancellation. Can I still re-enter with visa stamp in the name of previous employer?
Thanks!
tattoo looking at the wings which
Macaca
07-31 05:23 PM
It's Time to End Or Reduce The Cloture Clog (http://rollcall.com/issues/53_15/guest/19599-1.html) By Robert Weiner and John Larmett, July 31 2007
Robert Weiner, president of Robert Weiner Associates Public Affairs, worked for 16 years in the House of Representatives and for six years in the Clinton White House. John Larmett, senior policy analyst at Robert Weiner Associates, was legislative assistant/press secretary to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and former Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.).
The Senate's cloture rule defeats democracy. It lets public servants hide and obfuscate behind a parliamentary quirk never intended by the framers of the Constitution. It's time to end or significantly change the cloture rule, as was last done in 1975, and move to a true democracy so that the House and Senate equally represent the American people.
There are checks and balances, the only ones the Founding Fathers stated and intended: a presidential veto, which Congress can override with two-thirds, the only supermajority specified in the Constitution; the courts; and elections. No one ever foresaw parliamentary sleight of hand as a block of the will of the majority. If Congress wants to restore Americans' confidence in its work from the current all-time lows, it needs to allow the system to work as common sense, the Constitution and the framers dictate.
During the April-May 2005 "crisis" on judicial nominations, the "Gang of 14," seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, agreed to oppose the constitutional or "nuclear" option and to oppose filibusters of judicial nominations except in "extraordinary circumstances." However, the Senate has failed to cut off debate on other issues 57 times since then, making clear that the system has failed.
Democrats are right to scream Republican "obstructionism," but Republicans, when they were in the majority, also were right to scream Democratic obstructionism. Both sides use and abuse the rule when they are in the minority to create some supermajority fantasy the public will not understand - and then blame the other side for not getting a legislative agenda accomplished.
In last year's campaigns, House Democrats promised to change the way Congress does business - and do it within the first 100 hours they were in session. With a majority of 30-60 votes, but no supermajority requirement, the House passed its entire agenda. Despite majority support, hindered by the supermajority "cloture," the Senate has struggled all year just to pass a few bills. The American people get the feeling the Senate is a train that never quite leaves the station.
The slow train continued July 17-18 when Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown capping an all-night debate. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, the 27th time this year alone that body has been unable to proceed on significant pieces of legislation. In the previous Congress (controlled by Republicans), Democrats were successful 34 times in blocking Republican legislation. Cloture has become the third rail of Congressional politics. It's time for the train to move on a different track.
Everyone has been properly complaining about obstructionism, but no one has said anything about changing the Senate rule on cloture. Since Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is talking about changing Senate rules to make it easier to restrict amendments on the floor, then why shouldn't the Senate also start the discussion about changing the cloture rule right now? It could be the difference in getting bills passed.
In early July, the minority's decision to filibuster the amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), which stated that men and women serving in the military deserved the same amount of time at home that they served overseas, died on a 56-41 failed cloture vote - a majority supporting it but the media saying it "failed."
In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, and it should change it again. If not an end outright, the best approach to guarantee the will of the majority, why not at least drop the requirement to 55 votes - necessitating just a little bit of extra consensus to end debate. Let the will of the American people, and of a majority of the Senate itself, be acted upon.
It's time to end the cloture clog, regardless of who's in charge.
Robert Weiner, president of Robert Weiner Associates Public Affairs, worked for 16 years in the House of Representatives and for six years in the Clinton White House. John Larmett, senior policy analyst at Robert Weiner Associates, was legislative assistant/press secretary to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and former Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.).
The Senate's cloture rule defeats democracy. It lets public servants hide and obfuscate behind a parliamentary quirk never intended by the framers of the Constitution. It's time to end or significantly change the cloture rule, as was last done in 1975, and move to a true democracy so that the House and Senate equally represent the American people.
There are checks and balances, the only ones the Founding Fathers stated and intended: a presidential veto, which Congress can override with two-thirds, the only supermajority specified in the Constitution; the courts; and elections. No one ever foresaw parliamentary sleight of hand as a block of the will of the majority. If Congress wants to restore Americans' confidence in its work from the current all-time lows, it needs to allow the system to work as common sense, the Constitution and the framers dictate.
During the April-May 2005 "crisis" on judicial nominations, the "Gang of 14," seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, agreed to oppose the constitutional or "nuclear" option and to oppose filibusters of judicial nominations except in "extraordinary circumstances." However, the Senate has failed to cut off debate on other issues 57 times since then, making clear that the system has failed.
Democrats are right to scream Republican "obstructionism," but Republicans, when they were in the majority, also were right to scream Democratic obstructionism. Both sides use and abuse the rule when they are in the minority to create some supermajority fantasy the public will not understand - and then blame the other side for not getting a legislative agenda accomplished.
In last year's campaigns, House Democrats promised to change the way Congress does business - and do it within the first 100 hours they were in session. With a majority of 30-60 votes, but no supermajority requirement, the House passed its entire agenda. Despite majority support, hindered by the supermajority "cloture," the Senate has struggled all year just to pass a few bills. The American people get the feeling the Senate is a train that never quite leaves the station.
The slow train continued July 17-18 when Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown capping an all-night debate. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, the 27th time this year alone that body has been unable to proceed on significant pieces of legislation. In the previous Congress (controlled by Republicans), Democrats were successful 34 times in blocking Republican legislation. Cloture has become the third rail of Congressional politics. It's time for the train to move on a different track.
Everyone has been properly complaining about obstructionism, but no one has said anything about changing the Senate rule on cloture. Since Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is talking about changing Senate rules to make it easier to restrict amendments on the floor, then why shouldn't the Senate also start the discussion about changing the cloture rule right now? It could be the difference in getting bills passed.
In early July, the minority's decision to filibuster the amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), which stated that men and women serving in the military deserved the same amount of time at home that they served overseas, died on a 56-41 failed cloture vote - a majority supporting it but the media saying it "failed."
In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, and it should change it again. If not an end outright, the best approach to guarantee the will of the majority, why not at least drop the requirement to 55 votes - necessitating just a little bit of extra consensus to end debate. Let the will of the American people, and of a majority of the Senate itself, be acted upon.
It's time to end the cloture clog, regardless of who's in charge.
more...
pictures Wearing Wings
natrajs
08-16 03:41 PM
Folks on Main Issues
There is no way we can calculate the total application numbers until unless USCIS comes out with the Details
Let us focus on how to make USCIS to speed up the process and increase number of visa's available
There is no way we can calculate the total application numbers until unless USCIS comes out with the Details
Let us focus on how to make USCIS to speed up the process and increase number of visa's available
dresses A. The wings on his shoes
mkrao
10-04 02:08 PM
My I 140 was transferred from NSC to washington DC office on July 27, 2007. Since then, Online case status does not say anything more than this. I am in my 7th year and worried. Does anyone has any idea as to why I 140 cases are transferred to local offices. Do local offices have authority to decide on I 140 cases? How long would it take for the local office to send a decision on it? How do I ollow up with the case? Attorneys / gurus please help..
more...
makeup type of shoes Hermes wants
blao
07-12 08:57 AM
bump!
girlfriend What three Beatrix Ong shoes
Blog Feeds
10-04 11:10 PM
What a piece of work from the man who warned us about death panels in the health care bill. His grasp of the facts don't seem to be much better when it comes to USCIS' enforcement of H-1B rules. From this letter, you would think USCIS is sitting around eating bon bons and not engaged in one of the most serious crackdowns in the H-1B program in decades. Most immigration lawyers who saw this memo today are probably scratching their heads because they've recently gotten requests for evidence asking for exactly the kind of documentation Grassley complains USCIS is not...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/grassley-letter-mayorkas-takes-uscis-to-task.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/grassley-letter-mayorkas-takes-uscis-to-task.html)
hairstyles Shoes with wings on them.
babugc40
03-19 07:34 PM
I was working with company A and got approved I140(1 year back) after that I moved to company B using approved I140 and got 3 yrs H1B extension.After that during July,07 period I requested company A to apply EAD and i485(Company A mentioned as future employment).Now I am still with company B.
But now Company A asking me to come back.Since I have everything approved (i140) except i485(pending) do I need to go back to company A?
If I do not go to company A,can he cancel approved I140 ?
Need help/suggestion .
Thanks
But now Company A asking me to come back.Since I have everything approved (i140) except i485(pending) do I need to go back to company A?
If I do not go to company A,can he cancel approved I140 ?
Need help/suggestion .
Thanks
ras
04-09 01:40 PM
I have an approved 140 with Sept 2005 PD
I have an I 140 and I 485 filed with Dec 2006. There is an RFE on this. I want to interfile I 485 with the approved I 140. Is there a possibility and if so what needs to be done.
I have submitted the response to the I 140 RFE. May be I will get a response in 2-4 weeks.
However, if the I 140 gets denied can I still Interfile my 485 with ealrier approved 140?
What are the options open for me to keep my 485 alive?
I have an I 140 and I 485 filed with Dec 2006. There is an RFE on this. I want to interfile I 485 with the approved I 140. Is there a possibility and if so what needs to be done.
I have submitted the response to the I 140 RFE. May be I will get a response in 2-4 weeks.
However, if the I 140 gets denied can I still Interfile my 485 with ealrier approved 140?
What are the options open for me to keep my 485 alive?
chanduv23
10-05 10:34 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No comments:
Post a Comment