paulinasmith
08-05 12:18 AM
Hi,
Normally for non auditted PERM cases only employer can check the status.
Try : Welcome to the iCERT Portal (http://icert.doleta.gov/)
icert case status check on the above link
Cheers
Normally for non auditted PERM cases only employer can check the status.
Try : Welcome to the iCERT Portal (http://icert.doleta.gov/)
icert case status check on the above link
Cheers
wallpaper hairstyles-for-2009
desi3933
06-18 03:17 PM
Hi,
If the labor from BEC gets approved and subsequent I140 as well, is it possible to request only the priority date change for the I485?
Not refering to replace the I140. IS IT POSSIBLE TO JUST REQUEST THE PRIORITY DATE?
Yes.
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
If the labor from BEC gets approved and subsequent I140 as well, is it possible to request only the priority date change for the I485?
Not refering to replace the I140. IS IT POSSIBLE TO JUST REQUEST THE PRIORITY DATE?
Yes.
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
Blog Feeds
07-22 04:20 PM
Others have suggested this, but we're now hearing that Majority Leader Reid is looking at trying to get a DREAM Act vote before the November election. According to Roll Call (subscription required): In an interview with La Opinion, the Nevada Democrat said he is largely leaving it up to reform advocates to tell him when a comprehensive bill is no longer viable and that the Senate should instead move to the narrower DREAM Act. After backers of a comprehensive bill say �that they feel we cannot get [comprehensive immigration reform] done this year � and the reason why we cannot...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/reid-considering-dream-act-vote-before-election.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/reid-considering-dream-act-vote-before-election.html)
2011 Fringe Hairstyle 2009
tom
06-18 03:14 PM
.
more...
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
bhasky25
01-15 05:16 PM
Thanks. The A#, DOB and photo are correct on the card. Can I use the EAD card and at the same time file for a correction.
Do I have to pay again for the correction ?
Do I have to pay again for the correction ?
more...
pthoko
08-28 11:37 PM
Hi,
Is this where you E-File AP Renewal?
https://efiling.uscis.dhs.gov/efile/
Is the renewal form I-131? Isn't it same as applying for FRESH AP??
No where on the form we indicate that this is a RENEWAL??
Who ever has e-filed AP renewal please help...
Thanks!
Is this where you E-File AP Renewal?
https://efiling.uscis.dhs.gov/efile/
Is the renewal form I-131? Isn't it same as applying for FRESH AP??
No where on the form we indicate that this is a RENEWAL??
Who ever has e-filed AP renewal please help...
Thanks!
2010 bob hairstyles 2009
iam_amit
01-06 10:31 PM
Hi, me and my wife we both r on H1b. My wife works with a solution & service LLC.say company A, now the owner is ready to start a new company, say B,with my wife as partner. She will be just passive investor in the company and getting profits, if any from company B. Can she still work full time with company A?. How can we invest in company B and take profits. is there any problem is getting profits more then 500K in a year.
What r IRS forms?. Finally any good attorney suggestions for Houston, TX.
What are the options for business formation,
Does anyone see any issue with this kind of formation and GC process for me..
Thanks,
What r IRS forms?. Finally any good attorney suggestions for Houston, TX.
What are the options for business formation,
Does anyone see any issue with this kind of formation and GC process for me..
Thanks,
more...
INSpector
09-14 05:34 PM
Guys
what is the right address to submit the I485 / EAD and AP using Fedex and fill it in Nebraska?
My attorney submitted my paperwork to:
850 S Street POBOX 87845 ?
I'm confused becase in the CIS site give the address in parentesis mention to write down the right POBOX.
What if she maid a mistake and send the paperwork to POBOX 87485?
PS.
I will be in DC, and we have rented a bus departing from wallace NC monday at 12:00hrs I still have sits available, we will drive to rRaleigh, the Virginia then DC
what is the right address to submit the I485 / EAD and AP using Fedex and fill it in Nebraska?
My attorney submitted my paperwork to:
850 S Street POBOX 87845 ?
I'm confused becase in the CIS site give the address in parentesis mention to write down the right POBOX.
What if she maid a mistake and send the paperwork to POBOX 87485?
PS.
I will be in DC, and we have rented a bus departing from wallace NC monday at 12:00hrs I still have sits available, we will drive to rRaleigh, the Virginia then DC
hair Homecoming 2009 Hairstyles
nj4800
07-03 04:20 PM
I received a RFE of my I485, and was asked to declare my self-employment since Dec,31, 2006. I have been engaged in Market America Direct Sell business part-time since August 26, 2005, and have claimed buinsess lost in my tax return since 2005. In 2006, I got a 1099 form that showed $600 income from Market America. After that I didn't have any income from the business.
My question is if I am self-employment. If so, do you have any way to resolve this issue?
My last entry into USA is 07/05/2008, but the I-94 was not replaced at Niagara Falls port. The last entry date on my passport is still Dec, 31, 2006.
My EAD start date is 7/31/2008.
I am looking for an Attorney who is an expert at this case to reply my RFE and resolve my pronblem.
Thanks
My question is if I am self-employment. If so, do you have any way to resolve this issue?
My last entry into USA is 07/05/2008, but the I-94 was not replaced at Niagara Falls port. The last entry date on my passport is still Dec, 31, 2006.
My EAD start date is 7/31/2008.
I am looking for an Attorney who is an expert at this case to reply my RFE and resolve my pronblem.
Thanks
more...
cbpds
05-19 06:25 PM
hi,
I am planning to extend the visitor visa for my mom for another two months.
Her current I94 expires on June 25th and At POE the officer told her that she must go back after 6 months
If I apply for extension of her visa before 45 days and she leaves US on current I94 date (June 25th) since she did not get a result,
1.Does she need to apply for a new visa since her extension got rejected even though she left before her current I94 date?Will it affect her future visits in case that extension gets rejected.?
2.What happens if she gets a rejection before her current I94 expiry on July 25th, will she need leave earlier and apply for new visitor visa?
Appreciate your answers
Thanks
I am planning to extend the visitor visa for my mom for another two months.
Her current I94 expires on June 25th and At POE the officer told her that she must go back after 6 months
If I apply for extension of her visa before 45 days and she leaves US on current I94 date (June 25th) since she did not get a result,
1.Does she need to apply for a new visa since her extension got rejected even though she left before her current I94 date?Will it affect her future visits in case that extension gets rejected.?
2.What happens if she gets a rejection before her current I94 expiry on July 25th, will she need leave earlier and apply for new visitor visa?
Appreciate your answers
Thanks
hot jessica biel hairstyles 2009.
waitiktsang
11-30 04:12 AM
Hi,
I am lawful permanent resident of United States, my I-130 is going to be expired on July, 2010, the last time I returned to United States was on October, 2009 and also depart on October, 2009.
I am now planned to return and live in the US for good on September, 2010, however by that time, my I-130 will be expired. Since my last time I left from US was on October 2009 and it is less than one year between the date I am going to return to US for good on September 2010. For this case, should I be fine by just holding just my green card to return to US for good.
Please kindly advise.
Thanks
wtt
I am lawful permanent resident of United States, my I-130 is going to be expired on July, 2010, the last time I returned to United States was on October, 2009 and also depart on October, 2009.
I am now planned to return and live in the US for good on September, 2010, however by that time, my I-130 will be expired. Since my last time I left from US was on October 2009 and it is less than one year between the date I am going to return to US for good on September 2010. For this case, should I be fine by just holding just my green card to return to US for good.
Please kindly advise.
Thanks
wtt
more...
house Prom Hairstyles 2009 Video
snhn
11-22 07:34 PM
Hello,
this is a bit different maybe since it deals with my mom. She was sponsored by my sister. She has been stuck in name check now for about 18 monts. Anyways, she is out of the country. She just left, and now my sister got a letter and appoinment letter for a 2nd finger print. My mother is using her advacne parole and the green card was filed for adjustment of status.
so the questiong is can my sister reschedule the appointment 8 months in the future or can she change the location for finger print to the office in the country where my mother is,
She is in Pakistan right now.
thanks
this is a bit different maybe since it deals with my mom. She was sponsored by my sister. She has been stuck in name check now for about 18 monts. Anyways, she is out of the country. She just left, and now my sister got a letter and appoinment letter for a 2nd finger print. My mother is using her advacne parole and the green card was filed for adjustment of status.
so the questiong is can my sister reschedule the appointment 8 months in the future or can she change the location for finger print to the office in the country where my mother is,
She is in Pakistan right now.
thanks
tattoo rihanna short hair styles 2009
freddyCR
August 12th, 2005, 03:51 AM
1234http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/freddyphoto/MISC/IMG_6516-1BW.jpg
more...
pictures and charming. Spring
meg_z
03-27 08:35 AM
Many of us have had a positive reaction to the TB skin test. So we take an X-ray to confirm we are fine and the doctor mark normal in the chest X-ray section. Pretty routinely done.
Now my spouse had a negative TB skin test, so no X-ray needed. However the physician and my attorney have different views on how to fill out the chest X-ray section of the form. The physician checked nothing in the section and is very adamant about the way he fills out the form. My attorney believes that the NOT DONE box in the section should be checked as he claims that he has seen REFs if the NOT DONE box is not checked. What is your opinion? Appreciate your feedback. Thanks.
Now my spouse had a negative TB skin test, so no X-ray needed. However the physician and my attorney have different views on how to fill out the chest X-ray section of the form. The physician checked nothing in the section and is very adamant about the way he fills out the form. My attorney believes that the NOT DONE box in the section should be checked as he claims that he has seen REFs if the NOT DONE box is not checked. What is your opinion? Appreciate your feedback. Thanks.
dresses Paris Hilton Hairstyles 2009-
coldcloud
07-21 10:46 PM
This might be little bit old, but I dont remember seeing a post on this. Employment-based immigrant visa fees almost doubled, Old fees $ 355, new fees $ 720 from July 13th. Does this mean USCIS will open the gates in Sept bulletin [to be released in August]?
New Consular Fees (http://travel.state.gov/news/news_5078.html)
New Consular Fees (http://travel.state.gov/news/news_5078.html)
more...
makeup short Hair highlights for 2009
gcformeornot
03-22 05:07 AM
so. But since your 140 is approved the PD is yours. You have to find new employer, start from Labor process again.
girlfriend hairstyles 2009.
REEF�
05-08 06:49 PM
Yea make it more like your footer.
hairstyles Pictures of mohawk hairstyle
weasel026
04-20 07:27 PM
you can only export swf files on the poser 4 pro pack witch is a bit of a downer considering i just purchaced poser 3 :(
Blog Feeds
12-11 10:00 PM
The media really should have picked up the truly obnoxious (and completely false) appeal to racism to convince his colleagues to vote against the DREAM Act last night: Mr. Speaker, if this act passes, if an illegal immigrant happens to be of a racial or ethnic minority, which the vast majority of illegal immigrants are, that individual, as soon as legal status is granted, will be entitled to all the education, employment, job training, government contracts, and other minority preferences that are written into our Federal and State laws. As a result, the DREAM Act would not only put illegal...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/rohrabacher-plays-race-card-in-arguing-against-dream-act.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/rohrabacher-plays-race-card-in-arguing-against-dream-act.html)
plakshmi
09-24 10:07 AM
I filed my 485 in August 2008 with new fee structure (one time fee for AP and EAD renewals). Now my AP is expiring in November 2009. Can any one who applied for AP renewal under the one time fee structure let me know how do I make use of that fee. I mean.. Can i just skip sending the check for $305?
No comments:
Post a Comment