Student with no hopes
10-20 11:18 AM
The dream of multiple-biometric IDs may become a reality in India (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/352077/Multiple_Biometric_IDs_Dream_or_Reality_)
wallpaper curly girl hair cuts
jay_t55
10-17 12:50 PM
Hi all!
I'm currently working on a personal project of mine (word processor) and there are a few things i cannot seem to get my head around and i think that they are very simple to do too...Maybe... First, I'm trying to open a new instance of my program by simply clicking a menu option on my form. i'm using visual c# 08 express edition, windows forms application... I have attached an image (very small image) to show u what i mean.. i'd appreciate anyone's help/advice on this, thanks for reading :-)
regards,
jt.
I'm currently working on a personal project of mine (word processor) and there are a few things i cannot seem to get my head around and i think that they are very simple to do too...Maybe... First, I'm trying to open a new instance of my program by simply clicking a menu option on my form. i'm using visual c# 08 express edition, windows forms application... I have attached an image (very small image) to show u what i mean.. i'd appreciate anyone's help/advice on this, thanks for reading :-)
regards,
jt.
cbadari99
03-01 11:52 PM
If you worked as a TA/RA and received compensation for that, you should mention your University as your previous employer.
This is what I did. However it is better if you consult your attorney.
This is what I did. However it is better if you consult your attorney.
2011 Curly Prom Hairstyles
esurfer
01-28 12:41 AM
I think it will be taken care automatically, ( since your A number on I 485 and new I 140 will be the same )
Thanks
So, you think i wouldn't have to file a new I-485? and USCIS will automatically look at my old I-485?
Thanks
Thanks
So, you think i wouldn't have to file a new I-485? and USCIS will automatically look at my old I-485?
Thanks
more...
lc1978
08-16 07:52 PM
Hello Gurus,
Pl guide me and let me know my options for the below scenario...
1. Me: Applied under EB2 (India) and have I-140 approved in September 2006.
Status as of now : Applied as dependent (secondary) on my spouse 485 and have EAD and AP since July 2007.
2. My spouse : Primary applicant - EB3 (India), December 2003.
As the dates are NOT moving forward for EB3 (India), I want to port our GC application dates from my spouse priority ( EB3- India - December 2003) to mine (EB2 - India - September 2006)
My question is, Can I change my status from dependent (secondary ) on my spouse 485 to me being primary applicant by invoking my approved I-140 (EB2 - India - September 2006), If YES what would be the process.
Thanks in advance
Pl guide me and let me know my options for the below scenario...
1. Me: Applied under EB2 (India) and have I-140 approved in September 2006.
Status as of now : Applied as dependent (secondary) on my spouse 485 and have EAD and AP since July 2007.
2. My spouse : Primary applicant - EB3 (India), December 2003.
As the dates are NOT moving forward for EB3 (India), I want to port our GC application dates from my spouse priority ( EB3- India - December 2003) to mine (EB2 - India - September 2006)
My question is, Can I change my status from dependent (secondary ) on my spouse 485 to me being primary applicant by invoking my approved I-140 (EB2 - India - September 2006), If YES what would be the process.
Thanks in advance
Head2GC
02-05 02:49 PM
Hello,
My I-140 was approved in August 2009 and my PD is Jan-2004 (EB3). I want to know when i can apply for I-485, should i have to wait till my PD becomes Current or is there any other way by which i can file the I-485. Please shed some light on this topic and thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks ! ! :confused: :rolleyes:
My I-140 was approved in August 2009 and my PD is Jan-2004 (EB3). I want to know when i can apply for I-485, should i have to wait till my PD becomes Current or is there any other way by which i can file the I-485. Please shed some light on this topic and thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks ! ! :confused: :rolleyes:
more...
chrisclick
08-22 08:47 AM
Agree with blazes.... A lime for LimeLine ;)
2010 Taylor Swift#39;s Tips For Curly
ASR
05-19 07:06 PM
I am silent visitor of this forum for last few months though, I seek some advice form you guys in forum. I just got I140(On May 5th 2008) approved and my priority date 23rd Jan 2004. As per the visa current bulletin I am with in the cutoff dates. I have job offer but I did not accept so far because I 140 was not approved but after I 140 I thought of changing the job (same offer) using AC21 portability, since I fall in current cutoff dates,
My question is this safe to change the job when priority date fall with in current cutoff dates?
GOT RFE on I 140 on Apri 1st 2008
RFE relied on MAY 1st 2008
I 140 aproved on May 05 2008
PD is 23 Jan 2004
My question is this safe to change the job when priority date fall with in current cutoff dates?
GOT RFE on I 140 on Apri 1st 2008
RFE relied on MAY 1st 2008
I 140 aproved on May 05 2008
PD is 23 Jan 2004
more...
ashatara78
09-14 01:06 PM
We got something similar. I have seen other posts in the forums but can't find them now. I would suggest you go for the fingerprints/biometrics and be done with it. Don't give them an excuse to actually implement "if you don't show up, your application will be considered abandoned".
hair Girls Long Curly Hairstyle
Blog Feeds
05-05 06:50 AM
Perry Bacon, Jr. writes in today's Washington Post that the President seems to be more interested in blaming the Republicans for his inability to deliver on immigration rather than actually making a serious effort to fix the problems. To President Obama - you've shown you're a serious bad @$S with your historic capture of the world's most wanted man. No one seriously believes you're helpless if you really consider something a priority.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/i-can-kill-bin-ladin-but-im-helpless-on-immigration.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/i-can-kill-bin-ladin-but-im-helpless-on-immigration.html)
more...
chand123
01-14 05:10 PM
I meant Papu..We have not yet heard from IV Core..I know funds may be an issue to do hard lobbying..can we use soft campigning like letter and Fax campign to turn attention to the legal issue..I thought it was time to pick up momentum now..
How about letter and Fax campaign to Key Congressmen..?. Papu?:)
I kind of agree with what you said, Pappu i think after next week we should do something to get some attention. This measure will be an addition to March1st rally.
Go IV
United we Stand
How about letter and Fax campaign to Key Congressmen..?. Papu?:)
I kind of agree with what you said, Pappu i think after next week we should do something to get some attention. This measure will be an addition to March1st rally.
Go IV
United we Stand
hot cute girls long curly hair
immidude
06-25 08:33 PM
anybody know how long it will take to receive receipt after filing I-140 in premium processing
more...
house haircuts for teenage girls
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
tattoo little girls curly hairstyle
Suva
05-06 12:13 PM
How can I create a new Thread?
more...
pictures Beautiful Girl With Curly Hair
san_visa
06-01 02:21 PM
Is there a option to track the I-140 status on the USCIS website using Application Receipt Number ?
Thanks,
San
Thanks,
San
dresses Read girls hairstyle cute
martinvisalaw
07-02 06:56 PM
LCAs for consultatnts definitely are challenging, since they move around so much. In your case, a new LCA is not required because the new position is in the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (basically the same town) as the old location.
In general, CIS and DOL distinguish between employees who are roving as part of their job, and those who are sent to a new location for a short term. The distinction is too complicated to go into here, but hopefully your company's attorney is well aware of it.
In general, CIS and DOL distinguish between employees who are roving as part of their job, and those who are sent to a new location for a short term. The distinction is too complicated to go into here, but hopefully your company's attorney is well aware of it.
more...
makeup Pretty Girl – Curly Hairstyle
puja101
07-12 04:45 PM
I received RFE that says" your application contained form I-693 in which the required TB skin test was not conducted. Please note there may be conflicting information on some published form I-693 instructions regarding when the chest X ray Report should be performed. It is required only when the TB skin test indicates a reaction equal to greater than 5 mm, or when the reason for why the TB skin test is medically inappropriate to perform has been annotated on theform I-693. Please submit a newly completed form I-693 indicating the results of the required skin test."
I did TB skin test in 2007 that came negative and it appears to me, civil surgeon did not updated results on I-693 form. After consulting with the doctor they filled up new I-693 from with 2007 test results and gave me in a sealed envelop. I need to know whether 2007 results will be acceptible to USCIS or do I need to do it gain before I submit response. Please advise.
I did TB skin test in 2007 that came negative and it appears to me, civil surgeon did not updated results on I-693 form. After consulting with the doctor they filled up new I-693 from with 2007 test results and gave me in a sealed envelop. I need to know whether 2007 results will be acceptible to USCIS or do I need to do it gain before I submit response. Please advise.
girlfriend Girls Curly Updos Hairstyles
mattz
10-09 09:50 AM
click on layout and then look just below and you will see
the layout specs you can adjust, units, width, height.
the layout specs you can adjust, units, width, height.
hairstyles Curly Girl#39;s Hairstyle
Blog Feeds
06-30 12:10 AM
The Obama administration announced to use cutting-edge technologies to revamp the entire US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), so as to not only reduce the paperwork, but also the backlog and bring in more transparency into the system.
US President Barack Obama told a select bi-partisan group of Congressmen that such a system would be in place in the next 90 days, in which the USCIS will launch a vastly improved website.
This is likely to help thousands of Indian Americans every year who apply for permanent residency or Green Card, citizenship or approach USCIS for various immigration issues, but have to experience an agonizing wait.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/06/improved_technology_to_bring_t.html)
US President Barack Obama told a select bi-partisan group of Congressmen that such a system would be in place in the next 90 days, in which the USCIS will launch a vastly improved website.
This is likely to help thousands of Indian Americans every year who apply for permanent residency or Green Card, citizenship or approach USCIS for various immigration issues, but have to experience an agonizing wait.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/06/improved_technology_to_bring_t.html)
admin
02-11 07:36 AM
sobers,
rest assured that QGA does have this info.
rest assured that QGA does have this info.
wc_user
10-27 04:24 PM
I asked my attorney if we could anything about the delay in the issuance of EAD. My attorney mentioned that she would send an e-mail to USCIS. Is there an e-mail id that attorneys use to contact USCIS ? Offcourse, I could have asked my attorney, but I thought I would post the question here first.
No comments:
Post a Comment