chanduraja51
05-13 12:26 PM
I have been denied US Student Visa thrice before. But that was about 10 years ago in 2001. I have only 2 stamps in my passport showing "application received" because third time was by mail and passport was not required to be sent.
I have to apply for UK DATV visa as am travelling to europe with family via UK. No stayover in UK though.. just 5 hours wait each way on same terminal to change planes.
In application for UK DATV visa, should I mention 2 refusals or all 3, since there are only 2 stamps of "application receipt" on passport? Can these refusals have any impact on my DATV visa? I have been living in the USA since and current have I485 pending with valid EAD and AP.
Any suggestions or experiences would be helpful please.
I have to apply for UK DATV visa as am travelling to europe with family via UK. No stayover in UK though.. just 5 hours wait each way on same terminal to change planes.
In application for UK DATV visa, should I mention 2 refusals or all 3, since there are only 2 stamps of "application receipt" on passport? Can these refusals have any impact on my DATV visa? I have been living in the USA since and current have I485 pending with valid EAD and AP.
Any suggestions or experiences would be helpful please.
wallpaper rihanna short curly hairstyles
div_bell_2003
12-15 08:05 PM
I saw soft LUDs on all our applications at NSC (pending 485s, 131s and approved 765s) on 12/12 and 12/15. This should mean some sort of system update on NSC, is it ? or should I look forward to good/bad news :confused: ? My PD is nowhere close to the current cut off date for EB2-I.
Blog Feeds
01-03 07:10 AM
The President has started revealing his plans on immigration for the next year. It sounds like he's planning on trying a do-over with Congress and attempting again to get a comprehensive immigration bill passed. He'll make the case for this in his State of the Union Address. I'm happy the President is still interested in working for change, I sincerely hope he is not making passing a reform bill his SOLE strategy. I'm reminded of Presidents in the past who regularly spoke in favor of something, but you just knew they didn't really care and were just trying to appease...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/obama-to-address-immigration-plans-in-state-of-the-union-address.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/obama-to-address-immigration-plans-in-state-of-the-union-address.html)
2011 rihanna hairstyles 2010 red.
eb3India
03-08 09:46 PM
"The first proposal for immigration reform this year is expected to be introduced by Senators John McCain and Kennedy in the next week"
Here is the statement from this article, how did they predict this timeline,
something is cooking
Here is the statement from this article, how did they predict this timeline,
something is cooking
more...
Lisap
09-10 12:08 PM
It depends on which state you are in and where your labor was filed. No matter where you send your application there is a possibility that they can transfer it to another center. I sent mine to NSC and it was transfered to Texas.
cool_guy_onnet1
06-24 03:24 PM
Hi, I have approved H1b through company "NewCompany" but my GC sponsoring company "GCcompany" is planning to cancel my APPROVED 140. Again, I know USCIS will do inted to deny and Yes, I have filed for 485 + it's been 180+ days but I guess the most important question of all is:-
"Will this affect my H1B status?' Since the approval for new 3 year (extension) was based on my 140 and now this thing is under jeopardy. If I use EAD, my wife will no longer be H4 and thats a different problem- Gosh when is thind going to end?"
"Will this affect my H1B status?' Since the approval for new 3 year (extension) was based on my 140 and now this thing is under jeopardy. If I use EAD, my wife will no longer be H4 and thats a different problem- Gosh when is thind going to end?"
more...
munnu77
04-12 11:22 AM
thnk u sgorla..
2010 2009 Bob Hairstyles of Rihanna
STAmisha
10-02 07:46 AM
YOU CAN. You have two options
You can interfile, the current 485 can be changed to approved 140 (eb3)
or
You can port the approved 140 priority date to the current 140 (eb2).
You can interfile, the current 485 can be changed to approved 140 (eb3)
or
You can port the approved 140 priority date to the current 140 (eb2).
more...
GveMyGC
01-03 08:02 AM
after going to bed & before waking up in the morning....
More of a dream than reality!
More of a dream than reality!
hair rihanna hairstyles bob.
rodnyb
11-27 04:04 PM
I was searching on all programmer salary's on SalaryList.com (http://salarylist.com), it looks like we are much higher than the other majors, business analyst, finance analyst. So if I want to do AC21, in current condition, should I keep same salary? Several companies I talk to can only match now
more...
glus
02-25 01:26 PM
NO, a 3-year extension is possible after I-140 is approved. In your case you will get a one-year extension based on PERM which is pending for 1 year, or is approved by the time you need to file for H-1B extension.
hot The hair can even be layered
panks
06-30 01:11 PM
Hello,
I am in my 10th year of H1B visa. (GC in process). Every other time I went to INDIA , I got my stamping in INDIA except in 2009 when I returned on Advanced Parole because of a lack of time. Now I need to go to INDIA again in July and I observed this condition for visa stamping at INDIAN consulates which is :
Have the same class of U.S. visa which is still valid or that has expired less than 12 months from the scheduled date of interview.
Wish to apply for the same visa class (e.g. had an H1 work visa, now applying again for an H1 work visa)
My question is whether my last entry to US on Advanced Parole will be interpreted as not having the same class of VISA. After I entered on AP , I did renew my H1 Visa and it is valid upto April'2011.
Thanks in advance for your help.
I am in my 10th year of H1B visa. (GC in process). Every other time I went to INDIA , I got my stamping in INDIA except in 2009 when I returned on Advanced Parole because of a lack of time. Now I need to go to INDIA again in July and I observed this condition for visa stamping at INDIAN consulates which is :
Have the same class of U.S. visa which is still valid or that has expired less than 12 months from the scheduled date of interview.
Wish to apply for the same visa class (e.g. had an H1 work visa, now applying again for an H1 work visa)
My question is whether my last entry to US on Advanced Parole will be interpreted as not having the same class of VISA. After I entered on AP , I did renew my H1 Visa and it is valid upto April'2011.
Thanks in advance for your help.
more...
house Rihanna#39;s bob
thara
03-08 10:29 PM
I got labor cert approve on FEB10 and going to apply I-140 via preium process in Mar 15.
My Laber cert was file on April 09 and I have been paid lower than prevailing wage since the company reduce working hour and aset of company is 0
Year 2008
W2 + Net income tax return of company reach required wage
Year 2009
W2 + ballance sheet reach required wage (but net income tax return for 2009 is not availble yet)
Are they going to ask for 2009 net income tax return in March? if my company going to file tax extension this year and I also afraid that the net income in tax return may be lower than the number in balance sheet this year.
Is it posible that My case would be get approve without any RFE?
Thank you so much for your response i have been worried about my case for a while......
pls help
My Laber cert was file on April 09 and I have been paid lower than prevailing wage since the company reduce working hour and aset of company is 0
Year 2008
W2 + Net income tax return of company reach required wage
Year 2009
W2 + ballance sheet reach required wage (but net income tax return for 2009 is not availble yet)
Are they going to ask for 2009 net income tax return in March? if my company going to file tax extension this year and I also afraid that the net income in tax return may be lower than the number in balance sheet this year.
Is it posible that My case would be get approve without any RFE?
Thank you so much for your response i have been worried about my case for a while......
pls help
tattoo Rihanna Bob Hairstyles.
rick_rajvanshi
02-25 07:26 PM
I found the following link on USCIS web site
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=97e19c337879d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Does this mean that USCIS is trying to speedup pending 485's ?
Read here and draw your own conclusions
http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-2/AOS.html
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=97e19c337879d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Does this mean that USCIS is trying to speedup pending 485's ?
Read here and draw your own conclusions
http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-2/AOS.html
more...
pictures short hair style. Rihanna has
gc_nebraska
02-23 03:18 PM
EB-485 processing times in NSC is FOUR (4) Months for the visa number available cases, and also pending EB-485 cases whose visa numbers are current and ready to adjudicate . So does this mean that cases with PD's not current but ready to adjudicate will get their I-485 approved by 6 months . Can some one please break it down for me .
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
dresses Rihanna bob
gcstruggle
11-07 01:09 PM
Yes I received my FP for 11/23/07 also. I assume they would be open!
more...
makeup 2009 Bob Hairstyles of Rihanna
GPP
11-10 10:20 PM
i dont like it .. its . too dark?
girlfriend Rihanna bob haircut
loudobbs
10-25 09:54 AM
I ve got the right connections....;););)
your IV screen name might....:D:D
your IV screen name might....:D:D
hairstyles Bob hairstyles
juan
09-06 04:11 PM
Can someone on H1-B visa buy an investment property and rent it out?
snathan
01-29 10:42 PM
How do i file extension for H1b ....my h1b expires tomorrow..can i do it online...this is the first extension...
wow...you are the man. What were you doing till the last min. I am not sure how you can do that. But from day after tomorrow, you are simply out of status. Contact your company's attorney ASAP. It will take aleast ten days to prepare the papers. My opinion is don�t screw up trying to file yourself. Because you are running out of time...
Or are you just kidding us for time pass :mad:
wow...you are the man. What were you doing till the last min. I am not sure how you can do that. But from day after tomorrow, you are simply out of status. Contact your company's attorney ASAP. It will take aleast ten days to prepare the papers. My opinion is don�t screw up trying to file yourself. Because you are running out of time...
Or are you just kidding us for time pass :mad:
Macaca
07-24 08:04 AM
Reform, the FDR way (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shlaes23jul23,1,2603353.story) Democrats are right to revere Roosevelt, but even he knew when to reform his own reforms. By Amity Shlaes, AMITY SHLAES is the author of "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," a syndicated columnist for Bloomberg News and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. July 23, 2007
WHERE'S the fun? That's the feeling you get watching the Democrats in Washington this summer. Gone is the happy plan for a frenzy of lawmaking, the "Hundred Hours" of action Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised when the Democrats took the House. The speaker's artful allusion to Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Hundred Days" quickly became an ironic echo. During that first euphoric legislative period, Roosevelt managed to rescue the banking system from disaster, assist bankrupted farmers, rewrite the economics of agriculture and the rules for flailing businesses, bring back beer � you name it. Contemporary leaders can't even act on pressing issues such as agriculture and immigration, not to mention Social Security.
Why can't politicians be Roosevelts today? For an answer, let's look to the middle of 1935, about two years into FDR's New Deal and the equivalent of about now in the election cycle. The federal government was still smaller than the nation's state and local governments combined. Two out of 10 men were unemployed. FDR took the economic emergency as a powerful mandate for further lawmaking. He jumped into the project with all the glee of a boy leaping into a sandbox. The papers reported that he was going to "blast out of committee" yet another round of bills, and blast he did � that year the country's premier labor law, the Wagner Act, was passed, as was Social Security.
At about the same time, Roosevelt slapped together the Rural Electrification Administration, which came on top of the New Deal's large farm subsidies. For construction workers, artists and writers, he created � also in mid-1935 � the Works Progress Administration, which hired the unemployed, including artists, craftsmen and journalists. To appreciate the size of that gift, imagine a contemporary politician responding to a market crash by putting ex-employees of Google on the federal payroll. The president also built on to an already large structure, the Public Works Administration, which funded town halls, grammar schools and swimming pools in 3,000 counties. The money? Roosevelt passed a tax increase that opponents called the "soak the rich" act. It contained an estate tax rate hike that would make John Edwards drool. By 1936, the government took up more than 9% of gross domestic product. For the first peacetime year in U.S. history, Washington had edged past the state and local governments in size to become a larger part of the national economy. (Just a few years earlier, state and local governments had been twice as large as Washington.) FDR had reversed the old crucial ratio of federalism, and Washington has dominated the country ever since.
Those early commitments set a trend of promises. Some of them became what we now call entitlements. Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s layered on governmental commitments with the Great Society. President Bush has heaped on more, with a new entitlement: prescription drugs for seniors. Only a narrow part of the federal budget remains for discretionary spending � the part left over for new ideas. And setting aside the question of whether an individual program is good, bad or simply in need of an overhaul, we've found as a country that old commitments are simply too hard to undo.
This is partly because of the way the political game works. When you seek to take away a benefit from one targeted recipient, he will fight like crazy to keep it � think of the ferocious battles the farm lobby wages over even tiny reductions in agricultural subsidies. Those who gain from reducing the size of the handout, however, are members of the lobbyless general public who will receive only an incremental advantage, maybe the equivalent of a penny or two apiece. So the rest of us don't have the incentive or ability to apply countervailing pressure. Yet that's exactly what we need today: the energy and exhilaration of FDR in his first term.
Today's timidity would have disturbed FDR, who had no trouble knocking down the sandcastles he had made. Early in the 1930s, he created 4 million jobs with the Civilian Works Administration, then uncreated them when he decided the CWA was too close to the English dole. When he tired of Harold Ickes' Public Works Administration, he scaled it back, and finally abolished it in 1941. As for Ickes' Department of the Interior, FDR decided that it was time to revise it into "a real Conservation Department" � a change many would welcome today.
A few leaders since FDR have persuaded Congress to help them bring about changes on this scale � Ronald Reagan's bipartisan tax reform of 1986 and Bill Clinton's welfare reform a decade later come to mind. These presidents were truer to FDR's spirit than the hesitating Congress of today. Clearing some blank space for new institutions is possible. But lawmakers won't do it if they honor Rooseveltian edifices more than Roosevelt did himself.
WHERE'S the fun? That's the feeling you get watching the Democrats in Washington this summer. Gone is the happy plan for a frenzy of lawmaking, the "Hundred Hours" of action Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised when the Democrats took the House. The speaker's artful allusion to Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Hundred Days" quickly became an ironic echo. During that first euphoric legislative period, Roosevelt managed to rescue the banking system from disaster, assist bankrupted farmers, rewrite the economics of agriculture and the rules for flailing businesses, bring back beer � you name it. Contemporary leaders can't even act on pressing issues such as agriculture and immigration, not to mention Social Security.
Why can't politicians be Roosevelts today? For an answer, let's look to the middle of 1935, about two years into FDR's New Deal and the equivalent of about now in the election cycle. The federal government was still smaller than the nation's state and local governments combined. Two out of 10 men were unemployed. FDR took the economic emergency as a powerful mandate for further lawmaking. He jumped into the project with all the glee of a boy leaping into a sandbox. The papers reported that he was going to "blast out of committee" yet another round of bills, and blast he did � that year the country's premier labor law, the Wagner Act, was passed, as was Social Security.
At about the same time, Roosevelt slapped together the Rural Electrification Administration, which came on top of the New Deal's large farm subsidies. For construction workers, artists and writers, he created � also in mid-1935 � the Works Progress Administration, which hired the unemployed, including artists, craftsmen and journalists. To appreciate the size of that gift, imagine a contemporary politician responding to a market crash by putting ex-employees of Google on the federal payroll. The president also built on to an already large structure, the Public Works Administration, which funded town halls, grammar schools and swimming pools in 3,000 counties. The money? Roosevelt passed a tax increase that opponents called the "soak the rich" act. It contained an estate tax rate hike that would make John Edwards drool. By 1936, the government took up more than 9% of gross domestic product. For the first peacetime year in U.S. history, Washington had edged past the state and local governments in size to become a larger part of the national economy. (Just a few years earlier, state and local governments had been twice as large as Washington.) FDR had reversed the old crucial ratio of federalism, and Washington has dominated the country ever since.
Those early commitments set a trend of promises. Some of them became what we now call entitlements. Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s layered on governmental commitments with the Great Society. President Bush has heaped on more, with a new entitlement: prescription drugs for seniors. Only a narrow part of the federal budget remains for discretionary spending � the part left over for new ideas. And setting aside the question of whether an individual program is good, bad or simply in need of an overhaul, we've found as a country that old commitments are simply too hard to undo.
This is partly because of the way the political game works. When you seek to take away a benefit from one targeted recipient, he will fight like crazy to keep it � think of the ferocious battles the farm lobby wages over even tiny reductions in agricultural subsidies. Those who gain from reducing the size of the handout, however, are members of the lobbyless general public who will receive only an incremental advantage, maybe the equivalent of a penny or two apiece. So the rest of us don't have the incentive or ability to apply countervailing pressure. Yet that's exactly what we need today: the energy and exhilaration of FDR in his first term.
Today's timidity would have disturbed FDR, who had no trouble knocking down the sandcastles he had made. Early in the 1930s, he created 4 million jobs with the Civilian Works Administration, then uncreated them when he decided the CWA was too close to the English dole. When he tired of Harold Ickes' Public Works Administration, he scaled it back, and finally abolished it in 1941. As for Ickes' Department of the Interior, FDR decided that it was time to revise it into "a real Conservation Department" � a change many would welcome today.
A few leaders since FDR have persuaded Congress to help them bring about changes on this scale � Ronald Reagan's bipartisan tax reform of 1986 and Bill Clinton's welfare reform a decade later come to mind. These presidents were truer to FDR's spirit than the hesitating Congress of today. Clearing some blank space for new institutions is possible. But lawmakers won't do it if they honor Rooseveltian edifices more than Roosevelt did himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment