tdasara
08-17 07:16 AM
Try Ben Salem, PA. I plan to go there with my EAD and I-485 this month end.
wallpaper heart, Tattoo Designs For
Bpositive
01-02 10:41 AM
Appreciate the responses...my concern was whether a potential H1B denial would cause problems at port of entry when using Advance Parole...
Karthikthiru
07-19 02:27 AM
My attorney did not ask for Tax Returns for AOS. Our company uses Berry, Appleman & Leiden LLP - www.usabal.com
Thanks
Karthik
Thanks
Karthik
2011 Heart Vine Tattoo Design by
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
mambarg
08-01 01:26 PM
But dont you guys expect improvement after all this fiasco ?
Do you not agree that INS will learn some lessons from this ?
Since DOS does not know or INS cannot tell DOS how many apps it has waiting for approval , then how will DOS decide on the monthly cutoff for EB categories ?
With all the fiasco. DOS will definitely ask INS and get the estimate before deciding cut off.
INS also promised that they will work with DOS to make this cutoff process proper ?
I dont know the details, but we may see a definite change henceforth.
So be ready for more surprises in coming months.
Enjoy the ride.............
Do you not agree that INS will learn some lessons from this ?
Since DOS does not know or INS cannot tell DOS how many apps it has waiting for approval , then how will DOS decide on the monthly cutoff for EB categories ?
With all the fiasco. DOS will definitely ask INS and get the estimate before deciding cut off.
INS also promised that they will work with DOS to make this cutoff process proper ?
I dont know the details, but we may see a definite change henceforth.
So be ready for more surprises in coming months.
Enjoy the ride.............
linuxra
07-23 02:31 PM
I got an rfe on employment v l and history of 5 year in oct 2009 replied dec 2009
after that no update?how abt u?
after that no update?how abt u?
more...
DallasBlue
07-13 09:50 PM
Special thanks and hats off to all who are participating in the rally !!
2010 hair heart tattoo pictures
mrajatish
04-02 08:45 PM
Admin,
This is just phenomenal - we are using this in our presentation. Let us pray that this works, and if it does, we will have a very important person fighting on our behalf.
This is just phenomenal - we are using this in our presentation. Let us pray that this works, and if it does, we will have a very important person fighting on our behalf.
more...
.jpg "small heart tattoo designs.")
neverbefore
06-30 02:05 AM
I have used AC21 replied to all the RFEs about it. Laast year my attorney delayed renewal of my EAD and immediately 485 petition started moving and landed in National benefits Center for scheduling an interview.
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
hair Heart Tattoos designs
walking_dude
11-26 11:19 AM
Thanks. Please consider sending the E-mail to your friends as well. We need as many to participate as possible. If not possible to attend due to excruciating circumstances, at the least please consider contributing monetarily to this effort.
I contributed $20 to this cause.
I contributed $20 to this cause.
more...
JulyApplicant
11-09 06:13 AM
I have applied for 485 on July 23rd. Received EAD and AP but I have not received Finger Printing notice so far. I tried calling the 1800** number but could only hear the recorded message.
My case was indeed transferred from California to Texas on September 20th.
Please advice.
My case was indeed transferred from California to Texas on September 20th.
Please advice.
hot heart tattoo designs,
ganguteli
06-12 06:40 PM
Hi, Now what are my options going forward and how does this affect my chances of a successful SPERM filing ??
Stop drinking too much beer and lazing around. Go and upgrade your skills and sperm count. Only then you can do a a successful SPERM filing :D
Stop drinking too much beer and lazing around. Go and upgrade your skills and sperm count. Only then you can do a a successful SPERM filing :D
more...
house wallpaper heart tattoo designs
Saralayar
07-09 12:55 PM
Guys,
Lot of our friends are waiting from 1998... Please wait, your turn will come.:o
Lot of our friends are waiting from 1998... Please wait, your turn will come.:o
tattoo Heart Tattoos designs
va_dude
11-06 05:24 PM
This is exactly the piece-meal approach/bill that several people wanted to support.
But i think IV core is backing CIR.
My 2 cents - CIR ain't happening this year (its almost mid-nov now and health care hasn't even been debated on the floor yer). Even enxt year is a long shot.
Need to back this bill.
But i think IV core is backing CIR.
My 2 cents - CIR ain't happening this year (its almost mid-nov now and health care hasn't even been debated on the floor yer). Even enxt year is a long shot.
Need to back this bill.
more...
pictures Heart Tattoo Design
watzgc
10-24 02:55 PM
Friends, we sent our h1b extension application in Jul 12 th to Vermont (VSC) and got receipt with in a week but still under process. now it is showing processing datge Apr 2007, can we convert to premium processing now ?. Thanks,:confused:
dresses lower back heart tattoo
akilaakka
10-05 12:44 PM
If the information he said to me is true.
He is from India.
EB 2 NIW. Filed concurently in Sep 2005. Got his card and his wife's approved few weeks ago
He is from India.
EB 2 NIW. Filed concurently in Sep 2005. Got his card and his wife's approved few weeks ago
more...
makeup small heart tattoo designs.
mhtanim
02-26 02:04 PM
This is correct as per my understanding. As soon as your GC is approved you will need AP to re-enter US. IO at POE will have the information about your approved GC. I do not think he will allow you to enter on H4 after the GC Approval.
This is just my understanding. Check with a attorney to get precise information.
No need for AP. If someone mails him the GC, he can get back to the U.S. with it.
This is just my understanding. Check with a attorney to get precise information.
No need for AP. If someone mails him the GC, he can get back to the U.S. with it.
girlfriend tattoos of hearts. hearts
saileshdude
05-14 10:18 AM
Mishras,
Can you complete your profile and mention what is your PD , service center, etc. Also can you scan and post the exact copy of the RFE you received. You can take out all the personal info like your receipt number,name but keep the wordings of the RFE intact.
That would help people here to help you.
Can you complete your profile and mention what is your PD , service center, etc. Also can you scan and post the exact copy of the RFE you received. You can take out all the personal info like your receipt number,name but keep the wordings of the RFE intact.
That would help people here to help you.
hairstyles love heart tattoos designs.
gee_see
10-19 10:54 PM
Experts... any advise???
delhirocks
07-19 10:43 PM
Applied for LCP in July 2007 and I am not sure if I can apply for I-140/485 if my labor is approved before 17 August 2007. My PD is July 2007 but my labor might get approved in August.
Any Guess????
Where did your labor application go...If Atlanta...then forget about it, If Chicago, start getting all the paperwork like BC & Medical ready as you will most likely get your approval in a week or two (I got mine in 2 days)
Any Guess????
Where did your labor application go...If Atlanta...then forget about it, If Chicago, start getting all the paperwork like BC & Medical ready as you will most likely get your approval in a week or two (I got mine in 2 days)
BharatPremi
07-12 10:57 AM
Well, I meant in the light of these new details coming out about visa numbers actually being available as claimed by "knowledgeable sources", and also in the light of the *kind of* questions being asked by Zoe Lofgren.
Just read the Ombudsman's report today - though I'd heard about these facts floating aroiund...
Not claiming to make some new discovery here... merely stating that it kinda makes sense now.
Sorry to start a new thread about this.... listened to Rajiv Khanna's recorded conf call and apparently he's not very hopeful anything will come out of AILF's class action...
jazz
What conference call you heard was more emphasizing not to file during July with a secure note that filing would not hurt too. But after that lot of water has flowen down from upper Ganges to Bengal Bay. After that Rajiv changed the opinion and specifically put a note on home page of immigration.com. That note now says it is smart to file in July. This gives us the hint, at least I beileve, in the background USCIS is forced to come up with favorable solution to us perhaps without the need of lawsuite by AILF. Around same time Greg Siskind came up with news that USCIS is holding the cases.. So let's wait
Just read the Ombudsman's report today - though I'd heard about these facts floating aroiund...
Not claiming to make some new discovery here... merely stating that it kinda makes sense now.
Sorry to start a new thread about this.... listened to Rajiv Khanna's recorded conf call and apparently he's not very hopeful anything will come out of AILF's class action...
jazz
What conference call you heard was more emphasizing not to file during July with a secure note that filing would not hurt too. But after that lot of water has flowen down from upper Ganges to Bengal Bay. After that Rajiv changed the opinion and specifically put a note on home page of immigration.com. That note now says it is smart to file in July. This gives us the hint, at least I beileve, in the background USCIS is forced to come up with favorable solution to us perhaps without the need of lawsuite by AILF. Around same time Greg Siskind came up with news that USCIS is holding the cases.. So let's wait
No comments:
Post a Comment