s416504
08-22 04:11 PM
I guess USCIS is sending Receipt Notes according to priority dates meaning with 2006-7 priority dates will get receipts later.
My 485 reached on 2nd july...No Update yet.
Can I ask any one get RN with priority date later than 2006?
My 485 reached on 2nd july...No Update yet.
Can I ask any one get RN with priority date later than 2006?
wallpaper Red Hairstyles | Hair Styles
man-woman-and-gc
04-22 12:50 PM
Can someone please respond?
Blog Feeds
04-21 06:40 AM
The storyline continues. Last year, 13,500 regular H-1B applications were counted in the first week and 5,600 advanced degree applications. This year 5,900 regular applications were received in the first week and 4,500 advanced degree petitions. USCIS just reported that in the second week of counting, 7,100 regular cases were receipted and 5,100 advanced degree applications. That's roughly the typical weekly usage we saw last year and if the pace doesn't change much, the cap will potentially be hit one to two months later than for FY2011. Later this summer as the cap starts to get a little closer to...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/04/h-1b-usage-off-to-slow-start.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/04/h-1b-usage-off-to-slow-start.html)
2011 Brunette Hairstyles with Red
zombie
03-08 03:54 PM
My case is like this, my original labor application was filed in Dec '04 under EB3 and it has been approved in Feb '07. Is it possible for me to file i140 in EB2. My paralegal says you can but just wanted to gather more information.
Thanks in advance!
Thanks in advance!
more...
Macaca
08-05 08:12 AM
A Bad Deal Gets Worse (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/05sun2.html) August 5, 2007
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
jcrajput
05-25 12:38 PM
We are planning to renew our EADs and I am looking for following information. I would appriciate if someone can please put this at one place...
1. Latest application forms
2. Current fees
3. Mailing address
Thanks in advance.
1. Latest application forms
2. Current fees
3. Mailing address
Thanks in advance.
more...
jungalee43
06-17 09:41 AM
There is an excellent article in Wall Street Journal by a former Reagan staffer discussing what would Pres. Reagan do today on immigration. For most of the Republicans Pres. Reagan is a hero, an icon. But are they really following Reaganism? Please read this article. I am not sure whether it is OK to copy paste the article. You may need to log in to WSJ.
Peter Robinson: Immigration: What Would Reagan Do? - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282431263367708.html)
Peter Robinson: Immigration: What Would Reagan Do? - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282431263367708.html)
2010 the bright-red highlights
mojo_jojo
01-20 03:07 AM
is it true that there are no limit to the number of H1B work visas handed to individuals who work in a University?
meaning that I can seek employment with a university anytime and get a H1B relatively easy?
can some kind souls please comment?
:confused:
meaning that I can seek employment with a university anytime and get a H1B relatively easy?
can some kind souls please comment?
:confused:
more...
sk.aggarwal
11-05 10:21 AM
A consultant in my project recently got his visa stamped in India. He didn't faced any issues. They didn't even ask for client letter. I guess he is just lucky :).
I am going to India next month and need to get my visa stamped. I work for a TARP employer ... Lets see how it goes.
I am going to India next month and need to get my visa stamped. I work for a TARP employer ... Lets see how it goes.
hair Previous Hairstyle
waitin_toolong
07-23 12:58 PM
That requirement is only for foreign passport holders travelling on visa/or visa waiver.
Us citizens are required tp present a non-expired passport, it does not say how long the passport needs to be valid for
Us citizens are required tp present a non-expired passport, it does not say how long the passport needs to be valid for
more...
a_paradkar
10-31 01:46 PM
Friends
The questions is, if i have an approved I-140 from Company A and I switch over to Company B, then would i be able to file my 485 based on 140 related to Company A when my PD for Labor (company A) becomes current.
Thanks, please let me know
The questions is, if i have an approved I-140 from Company A and I switch over to Company B, then would i be able to file my 485 based on 140 related to Company A when my PD for Labor (company A) becomes current.
Thanks, please let me know
hot Brunette Hairstyles with Red
amit_tsh
07-31 10:56 PM
I had filled my & my wife's 485 on July 16th 2007. However I noticed that the check that I had sent for my 485 had a minor overwriting in the amount field. I had filed for my wife's H-4 extension last month with a similar issue in the check and the USCIS has sent the H-4 application back. Obviously, I do not want the 485 application to be rejected. So i need urgent help on this matter from you all immigration experts, please help me weigh my options:
1.) Can I refile 485 for me and my wife? Is it possible to have 2 485 applications for a person.
2.) If I refile, and then the USCIS accepts my first application, then will loose the fees for second application or will it be refunded?
3.) Do you think I will simply be asked for another check if I dont refile (which I really doubt.)
I know the mistake might sound stupid but Please guide me in this dilemma. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
thanks.
1.) Can I refile 485 for me and my wife? Is it possible to have 2 485 applications for a person.
2.) If I refile, and then the USCIS accepts my first application, then will loose the fees for second application or will it be refunded?
3.) Do you think I will simply be asked for another check if I dont refile (which I really doubt.)
I know the mistake might sound stupid but Please guide me in this dilemma. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
thanks.
more...
house Long Black Hairstyle With Red
Canadianamerican
09-28 11:50 AM
Hello,
I am a canadian of Indian Origin.I was granted US Immigrant visa under the EB3 category at the Montreal US consulate in 2004.At that time I could not take my family for the interview and we chose to take their Visa later.after 5 years now we have decided to move to US (I am on commuters GC now) and has been trying for an appointment for my family at the consulate in Montreal.The consulate has informed me couple months back that there is no visa number available and my priority date is also not current (our priority date is Mar 2002).Is there any way out of this as I read now that the priority date is stuck in 2001 for a few years now and there is no real chance of moving ahead any time soon.I realise now that maybe we should all have taken the visa at that time instead of just me.Now I am stuck , is there no special case for my type of case as I had already been granted Visa earlier or since My case was already approved in 2004? I will appreciate any help or advise.
Thank You
CanadianAmerican.
I am a canadian of Indian Origin.I was granted US Immigrant visa under the EB3 category at the Montreal US consulate in 2004.At that time I could not take my family for the interview and we chose to take their Visa later.after 5 years now we have decided to move to US (I am on commuters GC now) and has been trying for an appointment for my family at the consulate in Montreal.The consulate has informed me couple months back that there is no visa number available and my priority date is also not current (our priority date is Mar 2002).Is there any way out of this as I read now that the priority date is stuck in 2001 for a few years now and there is no real chance of moving ahead any time soon.I realise now that maybe we should all have taken the visa at that time instead of just me.Now I am stuck , is there no special case for my type of case as I had already been granted Visa earlier or since My case was already approved in 2004? I will appreciate any help or advise.
Thank You
CanadianAmerican.
tattoo christina-aguilera-blonde-red-
zzsbzz
07-13 02:04 AM
Hi,
My Priority date is Jun 2006/EB2 India. After the Aug bulletin I'm now afraid that my priority date might get current next month.
My concern is that I might be getting married in the near future and I don't want to deal with an immigration nightmare for my spouse. At the same time I don't want to rush a decision like getting married based on USCIS priority dates. Is there anyway I could delay my GC adjudication for 3-4 months to get some more time ...
Thanks!
My Priority date is Jun 2006/EB2 India. After the Aug bulletin I'm now afraid that my priority date might get current next month.
My concern is that I might be getting married in the near future and I don't want to deal with an immigration nightmare for my spouse. At the same time I don't want to rush a decision like getting married based on USCIS priority dates. Is there anyway I could delay my GC adjudication for 3-4 months to get some more time ...
Thanks!
more...
pictures color with red highlights
lucas92
05-01 02:51 PM
I am bored. Yeah!
dresses Here short hairstyle with red
agesilaus
November 24th, 2005, 12:14 PM
File->Script->Image Processor lets you batch convert to .jpg, tif and psd. Or any combination thereof. You can run an action on the batch too.
BK
BK