pani_6
03-25 02:10 PM
I had FP done way back in October 07..but there is no status change LUD on I-485..what to do??.:confused:..Do I take an appointment to talk to an officer or simply call USCIS ..
wallpaper Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
dannyvn
09-14 02:22 PM
my wife went to mumbai embassy. after intw they said they need some more info in their systems before issuing the visa. It was h1 renewing. But they didn't keep the passport. Told to submit the passport after they sent email or call you. They did sent the email to submit the passport within 2 days.
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:50 AM
Since the early days of this blog, I've chastised immigration bureaucrats who use specious reasoning to treat small businesses petitioning for employment-related immigration benefits more harshly than their large-cap counterparts. The latest assault on fairness and reason is reflected in a trend affecting several categories of employment-based visas -- the H-1B (Worker in a Specialty Occupation), the L-1 nonimmigrant (Intracompany-Transferee Manager or Executive) and the EB1-3 (Multinational Manager or Executive). An example of this trend is a recently released EB1-3 decision (decided May 1, 2009) of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) denying an immigrant visa petition for a multinational...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/when-will-they-ever-learn-immigration-denial-thrives-perniciously-at-uscis.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/when-will-they-ever-learn-immigration-denial-thrives-perniciously-at-uscis.html)
2011 hot justin bieber kissed
skp71
07-18 06:45 PM
My PD is 09/2002. I have already renewed EAD for 3 times. Still I have been using my H1, not on EAD. Due to lot of expenses, I don't want to renew EAD again. Current EAD is expiring in September. Is that okay? or better renew? Thanks.
more...
Circus123
04-04 11:27 PM
My bad ... Too many beers too for today Good night!
gcpool
08-13 12:00 PM
Today after more than a year of calling I was forwarded from NSC to Los Angles office. Looks like NSC CS is offline.
I used to call and narrate my case issues and they would say they emailed or asked me to callback. And my calls went nowhere. Today it got routed to LA office and they listened to my issue and said they are escalating the call and then I got to an officer. He took my case issue and gave me a service request no. NO ONE in Nebraska told me there was something called service request. (though I read about it recently in this forum). I had asked numerous times to the NSC CS how can I track my calls and they said you couldnt.
I think NSC CS should be sued for giving wrong info
I used to call and narrate my case issues and they would say they emailed or asked me to callback. And my calls went nowhere. Today it got routed to LA office and they listened to my issue and said they are escalating the call and then I got to an officer. He took my case issue and gave me a service request no. NO ONE in Nebraska told me there was something called service request. (though I read about it recently in this forum). I had asked numerous times to the NSC CS how can I track my calls and they said you couldnt.
I think NSC CS should be sued for giving wrong info
more...
carbon
09-13 10:04 PM
I have the same question. Can someone please guide us.
Thanks a lot.
Thanks a lot.
2010 Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
Simon Henriksen
07-16 06:46 AM
I can offer your personal or small company a nice looking website for about $250.
I can do simple flash, and HTML. I have experience with different kind of java scripts, and movabletype. I can set up a forum for you if you want that too.
Intersted? Just reply, and tell me what you need and what imagine you have in your head.
/
Simon Henriksen
I can do simple flash, and HTML. I have experience with different kind of java scripts, and movabletype. I can set up a forum for you if you want that too.
Intersted? Just reply, and tell me what you need and what imagine you have in your head.
/
Simon Henriksen
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.
hair justin bieber and selena gomez
lecter
May 15th, 2004, 12:02 PM
agree with fred 2000% (or so)