Blog Feeds
11-09 03:40 PM
One of the stand out football players for the United States Military Academy at West Point is junior Alejandro Villanueva, a Spaniard who played high school football in Belgium. The wide receiver is also the tallest player in all of college football - 6 foot, 10 inches. Villanueva will have to serve five years in the Army after graduating and will probably be deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq. Hopefully, he'll still be able to have a shot at the pros when he is finished.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/immigrant-of-the-day-alejandro-villanueva-soldier-football-player.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/immigrant-of-the-day-alejandro-villanueva-soldier-football-player.html)
wallpaper happy birthday quotes and
ctoan
08-12 07:37 PM
Hi
I'm self filing my EAD renewal and needed help filling out form I-765.
Question 11: Dates of prior EAD.
Do they expect the dates of all previous EAD applications or just the last one?
Question 12: Date of Last Entry into the U.S.
Question 13: Place of Last Entry into the U.S.
I recently went on a short trip to Canada and I didn't receive a new I-94 on my entry back by road via Buffalo,NY. Prior to that, I entered the US on H1B via SFO.
How should I answer this one? SFO or Buffalo,NY?
I live in California. Where do I mail the I-765 application?
Thanks!
I'm self filing my EAD renewal and needed help filling out form I-765.
Question 11: Dates of prior EAD.
Do they expect the dates of all previous EAD applications or just the last one?
Question 12: Date of Last Entry into the U.S.
Question 13: Place of Last Entry into the U.S.
I recently went on a short trip to Canada and I didn't receive a new I-94 on my entry back by road via Buffalo,NY. Prior to that, I entered the US on H1B via SFO.
How should I answer this one? SFO or Buffalo,NY?
I live in California. Where do I mail the I-765 application?
Thanks!
dolicus
12-02 02:04 PM
My I-140 PD is pending since May 1Oth, But no Approval.
The dates are Hoax, I dont know what Nebraska is doing,
the Processing says August but I am from May but no Approvals yet.
Thanks
The dates are Hoax, I dont know what Nebraska is doing,
the Processing says August but I am from May but no Approvals yet.
Thanks
2011 Happy Birthday, Birthday
TheHulk
11-30 08:16 PM
Hi,
My spouse was on H1, the applied for H4 which was approved but he start date was incorrect, so an I102 was applied to get the I-94 corrected , we got the dates incorrect again so the lawyer applied for correct of dates again (October 2010)
In the mean time, we had a family emergency and my wife had to go to India , She went on a valid AdvanceParole. ( We have a pending 485 , so got an AP also)
Today we received a mail from USCIS, asking her to attend an interview regarding this I-94 replacement.
. She is not in US
. She submitted all the I94 cards she had at the Aiport
1. Will she have any problem coming back. She was always on Status. NO issues there
2. Is there any way to postpone the interview ?
3. Does it affect my I-485
4. What is the best course of action
Thanks and rgds
My spouse was on H1, the applied for H4 which was approved but he start date was incorrect, so an I102 was applied to get the I-94 corrected , we got the dates incorrect again so the lawyer applied for correct of dates again (October 2010)
In the mean time, we had a family emergency and my wife had to go to India , She went on a valid AdvanceParole. ( We have a pending 485 , so got an AP also)
Today we received a mail from USCIS, asking her to attend an interview regarding this I-94 replacement.
. She is not in US
. She submitted all the I94 cards she had at the Aiport
1. Will she have any problem coming back. She was always on Status. NO issues there
2. Is there any way to postpone the interview ?
3. Does it affect my I-485
4. What is the best course of action
Thanks and rgds
more...
Macaca
06-14 08:33 PM
For Democratic Leaders, a Fear That the Focus on the War Has Blurred (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/washington/14cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By JEFF ZELENY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), June 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 13 � President Bush had barely left the Capitol after immigration talks there on Tuesday when Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, walked onto the Senate floor to call for a moment of silence. It was time, Mr. Reid said, to pay tribute to American soldiers in Iraq as their death toll reached 3,500.
A short time earlier, Mr. Reid convened a conference call with liberal bloggers, offering assurances that Democrats would revive debate over the Iraq war. And he pledged to revive it soon, ending the silence that followed the White House�s outmaneuvering of Democrats last month to win more money for the war without a timeline to end it.
�They�ve been driving this debate very well,� Mr. Reid said later, speaking of the bloggers who have been pushing for Congress to end the war. �I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high.�
It has been nearly three weeks since Democrats have held a formal Iraq debate or voted on an Iraq proposal in the House or Senate. Not since they assumed the majority in January has there been such a lull. During the three weeks, Congressional approval ratings have fallen, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she knew why.
�It�s the war, I believe so, it�s the war,� Ms. Pelosi said in a brief interview on Wednesday. �In terms of the issue that the American people want to have resolved, the war is three or four times higher than any other issue.�
Some Democrats argue that it is high time for the party to turn its attention to domestic issues � energy legislation, immigration overhaul and lobbying reform � to allay concerns that Democrats have not achieved enough significant accomplishments during the first six months of their majority. But other Democrats are demanding a return to the Iraq debate, which Mr. Reid has now pledged to do this month.
The proposals will not be new. Rather, Democrats intend to reprise at least four ideas when the Senate considers the Defense Department policy bill: a measure to reverse the authorization for the Iraq war, set a deadline for troop withdrawal, block money for major combat operations after March 31, 2008, and increase readiness requirements for troops to be sent back to Iraq. �On Iraq,� Mr. Reid said, �we�re going to hold the president�s feet to the fire.�
Democratic Congressional leaders have been stung by the decline in Congressional job approval ratings.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg nationwide telephone poll released this week found that 27 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job, while 65 percent disapprove. And 29 percent of the more than 1,100 poll respondents, all registered voters, said Democrats were working to change how government is run, compared to 63 percent who said Democrats are governing in a business-as-usual manner. The margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points.
Ms. Pelosi said it had been difficult to convince some Democrats that despite their majority, they are limited in how they can change the president�s Iraq policy.
�Some Democrats understand that we don�t have the signature and we can only do so much,� she said. �Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them, being very unhappy that we have not been able to bring the war to an end.�
With September being highlighted as a critical review period for Iraq policy � Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander, is to report to Congress on the progress of the current troop buildup � Democratic leaders had initially hoped to tackle their domestic priorities in late spring and early summer. But on Wednesday, Democratic leaders said they would not wait.
�The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy,� Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid wrote Wednesday in a letter to the White House.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic conference, said Democrats could not be drawn into focusing solely on Iraq. �We have to do Iraq and change the priorities of Washington,� he said. �You can�t become a one-trick pony.�
The war has been the underlying theme of the new Democratic Congress, with barely a week going by without legislators embroiling themselves in committee hearings, a floor debate or symbolic resolutions for and against the war. Democrats have walked a careful line, trying to keep their criticism alive, but lowering expectations that they alone can influence war policy.
The month of June, though, has so far unfolded with barely a word being uttered about Iraq. And lawmakers said they were hearing about it.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who was elected last fall, said constituents were seeking reassurance that Democratic efforts to challenge the administration have not fallen off. She said voters had little interest in being schooled in the intricate rules of the Senate, where 60 votes are required for debate to proceed on legislation.
�I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, �Well, we need 60 votes,� � she said. �People are dying over there, so that isn�t always helpful.�
While Congress must accomplish domestic priorities, she said, Iraq remains the chief issue for most voters. �I think that�s one of the things we�ve struggled with, is finding that balance,� she said, welcoming the news that the Senate intends to revive the debate before month�s end. �It�s very important to me. I don�t want to go home until we do it.�
WASHINGTON, June 13 � President Bush had barely left the Capitol after immigration talks there on Tuesday when Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, walked onto the Senate floor to call for a moment of silence. It was time, Mr. Reid said, to pay tribute to American soldiers in Iraq as their death toll reached 3,500.
A short time earlier, Mr. Reid convened a conference call with liberal bloggers, offering assurances that Democrats would revive debate over the Iraq war. And he pledged to revive it soon, ending the silence that followed the White House�s outmaneuvering of Democrats last month to win more money for the war without a timeline to end it.
�They�ve been driving this debate very well,� Mr. Reid said later, speaking of the bloggers who have been pushing for Congress to end the war. �I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high.�
It has been nearly three weeks since Democrats have held a formal Iraq debate or voted on an Iraq proposal in the House or Senate. Not since they assumed the majority in January has there been such a lull. During the three weeks, Congressional approval ratings have fallen, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she knew why.
�It�s the war, I believe so, it�s the war,� Ms. Pelosi said in a brief interview on Wednesday. �In terms of the issue that the American people want to have resolved, the war is three or four times higher than any other issue.�
Some Democrats argue that it is high time for the party to turn its attention to domestic issues � energy legislation, immigration overhaul and lobbying reform � to allay concerns that Democrats have not achieved enough significant accomplishments during the first six months of their majority. But other Democrats are demanding a return to the Iraq debate, which Mr. Reid has now pledged to do this month.
The proposals will not be new. Rather, Democrats intend to reprise at least four ideas when the Senate considers the Defense Department policy bill: a measure to reverse the authorization for the Iraq war, set a deadline for troop withdrawal, block money for major combat operations after March 31, 2008, and increase readiness requirements for troops to be sent back to Iraq. �On Iraq,� Mr. Reid said, �we�re going to hold the president�s feet to the fire.�
Democratic Congressional leaders have been stung by the decline in Congressional job approval ratings.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg nationwide telephone poll released this week found that 27 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job, while 65 percent disapprove. And 29 percent of the more than 1,100 poll respondents, all registered voters, said Democrats were working to change how government is run, compared to 63 percent who said Democrats are governing in a business-as-usual manner. The margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points.
Ms. Pelosi said it had been difficult to convince some Democrats that despite their majority, they are limited in how they can change the president�s Iraq policy.
�Some Democrats understand that we don�t have the signature and we can only do so much,� she said. �Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them, being very unhappy that we have not been able to bring the war to an end.�
With September being highlighted as a critical review period for Iraq policy � Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander, is to report to Congress on the progress of the current troop buildup � Democratic leaders had initially hoped to tackle their domestic priorities in late spring and early summer. But on Wednesday, Democratic leaders said they would not wait.
�The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy,� Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid wrote Wednesday in a letter to the White House.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic conference, said Democrats could not be drawn into focusing solely on Iraq. �We have to do Iraq and change the priorities of Washington,� he said. �You can�t become a one-trick pony.�
The war has been the underlying theme of the new Democratic Congress, with barely a week going by without legislators embroiling themselves in committee hearings, a floor debate or symbolic resolutions for and against the war. Democrats have walked a careful line, trying to keep their criticism alive, but lowering expectations that they alone can influence war policy.
The month of June, though, has so far unfolded with barely a word being uttered about Iraq. And lawmakers said they were hearing about it.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who was elected last fall, said constituents were seeking reassurance that Democratic efforts to challenge the administration have not fallen off. She said voters had little interest in being schooled in the intricate rules of the Senate, where 60 votes are required for debate to proceed on legislation.
�I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, �Well, we need 60 votes,� � she said. �People are dying over there, so that isn�t always helpful.�
While Congress must accomplish domestic priorities, she said, Iraq remains the chief issue for most voters. �I think that�s one of the things we�ve struggled with, is finding that balance,� she said, welcoming the news that the Senate intends to revive the debate before month�s end. �It�s very important to me. I don�t want to go home until we do it.�
sertasheep
03-23 08:32 PM
We will stop accepting questions for the attorney call scheduled for April 1st. At this time, we have reachd the "cap" of ~20 questions for the next conf. call scheduled for the April 1st 2007. Members who have sent in their questions will be assigned Please await more details on the time.
To ensure that questions are "current" and don't get "backlogged", please send in your next set of questions only on or after March 31st.
To ensure that questions are "current" and don't get "backlogged", please send in your next set of questions only on or after March 31st.
more...
Macaca
08-05 07:42 AM
A Polarized, and Polarizing, Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301949.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com), August 5, 2007
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
2010 Birthday Wishes » SiYaLLa
ras
07-01 06:27 PM
Currently am on H1 with GC Sponsoring company. I have also filed my I 485 in July 07.
I have got a contract project interview with a prominent company. But I was told that I have to be on W2. I am not clear what does that mean.
Does it mean that I have to move over to EAD if I get the offer?
Can I still work with the sponsoring company and be on w2 for the contract. I am not sure what is correct way of going with the offer. Can some one help me understand this?
I have got a contract project interview with a prominent company. But I was told that I have to be on W2. I am not clear what does that mean.
Does it mean that I have to move over to EAD if I get the offer?
Can I still work with the sponsoring company and be on w2 for the contract. I am not sure what is correct way of going with the offer. Can some one help me understand this?
more...
LostInGCProcess
10-07 05:28 PM
I saw this link where it say he is to resign in March 1 2008.
http://www.theindianstar.com/index.php?uan=3503
"Prakash to quit USCIS Ombudsman March 1"
http://www.theindianstar.com/index.php?uan=3503
"Prakash to quit USCIS Ombudsman March 1"
hair happy birthday quotes for
ganeshsha
03-02 09:45 PM
Hi Friends,
I have a question, actually I worked with a for-profit company A for few years and then transferred my H1B to a not-for-profit company B last year. Now can I transfer my H1B to a for-profit company C?
Actually one of my friend told, it is not possible and I can transfer only to the not-for-profit companies as I am currently working with a not-for-profit company B. Is this true?
ganesh
I have a question, actually I worked with a for-profit company A for few years and then transferred my H1B to a not-for-profit company B last year. Now can I transfer my H1B to a for-profit company C?
Actually one of my friend told, it is not possible and I can transfer only to the not-for-profit companies as I am currently working with a not-for-profit company B. Is this true?
ganesh
more...
cmfirst
07-19 04:25 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070718_012859.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _businessweek+exclusives
hot hair happy irthday sayings
gcpadmavyuh
09-17 12:59 AM
|\/|\/|\/|\/
more...
house happy birthday quotes for sister. happy birthday wishes poems.
boldm28
06-13 10:41 AM
When to expect EAD /AP if I had filed my EAD/485/ on June 10
PD being current
I know it takes 3 months but with this kinda mass filing I want to know the date to make some decisions
thanks
Bol
PD being current
I know it takes 3 months but with this kinda mass filing I want to know the date to make some decisions
thanks
Bol
tattoo cute happy birthday quotes for
vali
03-30 07:36 AM
I'm in the 8th year of H1-B, BEC priority date 04/2001, just got a notice that the case was closed ?? and the lawyer is working to reopen the case.
I have now a very good opportunity to work for another company, huge pay and benefits, a lot of pressure from this company to work for them.
Pls who can answer 2 small questions:
1. Do I have a chance to work for this company?
2. It makes a difference if I'm currently in NJ and this new company is in Utah - thinking that maybe they are not so many applicants in that state? Just for the LC processing speed?
Thanks a lot.
I have now a very good opportunity to work for another company, huge pay and benefits, a lot of pressure from this company to work for them.
Pls who can answer 2 small questions:
1. Do I have a chance to work for this company?
2. It makes a difference if I'm currently in NJ and this new company is in Utah - thinking that maybe they are not so many applicants in that state? Just for the LC processing speed?
Thanks a lot.
more...
pictures hot Happy Birthday Niece
pappu
10-19 10:00 AM
I am looking for a good immigration lawyer based out of chicago. I had some questions and thought I will call and talk to a lawyer. If anybody knows of any lawyer who is not expensive and is good, please let me know
Thanks is advance
Sandeej
You can join our Free attorney conference calls held on Thursdays. You can ask your question for free to Attorneys during the call. Check the thread on this call on the forum.
Thanks is advance
Sandeej
You can join our Free attorney conference calls held on Thursdays. You can ask your question for free to Attorneys during the call. Check the thread on this call on the forum.
dresses 2011 happy birthday quotes for
excogitator
10-20 06:38 AM
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1169/firstalien.png
Yesss. We all know who the first man on the moon was.
Did you ever know the Alien who reached there first though.
It was meeee!! :te:
I learnt to speak English on the World Wide Web
Yesss. We all know who the first man on the moon was.
Did you ever know the Alien who reached there first though.
It was meeee!! :te:
I learnt to speak English on the World Wide Web
more...
makeup happy birthday quotes to a
kirupa
07-14 04:13 AM
Added! :)
girlfriend happy birthday wishes gif
HalfDog
03-09 07:23 PM
lol, if you want, we can start the battle again, just didn't want to sit waiting
hairstyles makeup happy birthday quotes
needhelp!
09-17 06:56 PM
Texas State Chapter will be reserving a booth space at the DFW Diwali Mela.
Last year we raised $580 for our cause and hope to do better.
Event Details:
Date: Sunday October 4th, 3 pm onwards
Venue: New Cowboys Stadium in Arlington TX.
New Cowboys Stadium - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=New+Cowboys+Stadium&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.732051,93.076172&ie=UTF8&z=15&iwloc=A)
Entry Ticket to the Event: $8
Parking: Free
Please attend and drop by to encourage us. Please contact me if you would like to volunteer.
Last year we raised $580 for our cause and hope to do better.
Event Details:
Date: Sunday October 4th, 3 pm onwards
Venue: New Cowboys Stadium in Arlington TX.
New Cowboys Stadium - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=New+Cowboys+Stadium&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.732051,93.076172&ie=UTF8&z=15&iwloc=A)
Entry Ticket to the Event: $8
Parking: Free
Please attend and drop by to encourage us. Please contact me if you would like to volunteer.
jelo
12-10 04:07 PM
Myself and my wife got first EADs with expiration of Sept 17, 2008. We both applied for renewal on July 14th, 2008 with TSC and my wife got her EAD under a month. My wife is using it work, where as I am still on valid H1b. My application was pending still then, I have called USCIS and put an expedite request on Oct 17, 2008. On Dec 3rd, my case status online updated saying, case transfered to one of the local office. I got a paper notice after 2 days saying:
for faster processing we have transfered your case to the following location.
and nothing in the next line, blank.
Even though I assume this was to faster my process, just wanted to know whether any of you have faced this.
Appreciate your reply.
for faster processing we have transfered your case to the following location.
and nothing in the next line, blank.
Even though I assume this was to faster my process, just wanted to know whether any of you have faced this.
Appreciate your reply.
brick2006
11-30 12:03 PM
hello...
I was on H1.. but i quit my job and i am currently enrolled as a Full time student.
I need to go to Mexico as part of my Study program....
I have received the change of status from USCIS..but i need to get my passport stamped..
I have not been successful in getting an appointment in Canada....
>> Can i go to mexico and get the visa stamped during my stay there..is it risky???
>> i cam here on F1-h1-now back to F1.... do i have to go to my country of origin to get my visa stamped.
inputs Pleaseeeee..
I was on H1.. but i quit my job and i am currently enrolled as a Full time student.
I need to go to Mexico as part of my Study program....
I have received the change of status from USCIS..but i need to get my passport stamped..
I have not been successful in getting an appointment in Canada....
>> Can i go to mexico and get the visa stamped during my stay there..is it risky???
>> i cam here on F1-h1-now back to F1.... do i have to go to my country of origin to get my visa stamped.
inputs Pleaseeeee..
No comments:
Post a Comment