ras
02-02 10:45 PM
I have an Andvance Parole valid till Feb'10 end. However right now am in India and wish to stay back even after the AP expiry. In this scenario is it good to apply for renewal AP from India or is it advisable to return back to US and then apply for AP?
Does any one provide how much time it takes for the renewal if I apply for AP from India. Do I need to give the India address for delivery? I have some one in US who can recieve the AP by mail and can send it by post to India. Is this an advisable?
Does any one provide how much time it takes for the renewal if I apply for AP from India. Do I need to give the India address for delivery? I have some one in US who can recieve the AP by mail and can send it by post to India. Is this an advisable?
wallpaper Copper Metal texture here:
sudiptasarkar
09-11 11:56 AM
I am trying to apply my AP (I-131) renewal. My current AP will expire on Oct 17 2009.
I had few questions about the form. Can someone please help me with the answers of my questions?
Part 1
Q#3. Class of Admission: I used my AP to enter the country on Sep 7th 2009. I am currently working on EAD. What should I enter for this field?
Part 3
Q1. Date of Intended Departure: I do not have any trip planned right now. What should I enter for this question.
Q2. Expected Length of Trip: What should I enter for this question?
On Part 7 it says that
"On a separate sheet of paper explain how you qualify for an advance parole document, and what circumstances warrant issuance of advance parole."
Can someone please let me know what needs to be done for the above?
Thanks
Sudipta
I had few questions about the form. Can someone please help me with the answers of my questions?
Part 1
Q#3. Class of Admission: I used my AP to enter the country on Sep 7th 2009. I am currently working on EAD. What should I enter for this field?
Part 3
Q1. Date of Intended Departure: I do not have any trip planned right now. What should I enter for this question.
Q2. Expected Length of Trip: What should I enter for this question?
On Part 7 it says that
"On a separate sheet of paper explain how you qualify for an advance parole document, and what circumstances warrant issuance of advance parole."
Can someone please let me know what needs to be done for the above?
Thanks
Sudipta
Macaca
11-28 07:49 AM
As Lott Leaves the Senate, Compromise Appears to Be a Lost Art (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702358.html) By Jonathan Weisman | Washington Post, November 28, 2007; A04
In January, as a dormant Senate chamber entered its fourth hour of inaction and a major ethics bill lay tangled in knots, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took to the Senate floor with a plaintive plea.
"Here we are, the sun has set on Thursday. It is a quarter to 6. The sun officially went down at 5:13. We are like bats," the veteran lawmaker lamented to a near-empty chamber. "Hello, it is a quarter to 6. . . . I have called everybody involved. I have been to offices. I have been stirring around, scurrying around. Is there an agenda here?"
The next 10 months appear to have given him the answer. A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.
And on Monday, Lott, one of the Senate's consummate dealmakers, called it quits.
"Is he the most frustrated he's ever been? Probably not," said David Hoppe, Lott's longtime chief of staff, now with the lobbying firm Quinn, Gillespie & Associates. "But frustration is cumulative."
Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate. With the Senate populated by a record number of former House members, the rules of the Old Boys' Club are giving way to the partisan trench warfare and party-line votes that prevail in the House. States once represented by common-ground dealmakers, including John Breaux (D-La.), David L. Boren (D-Okla.), James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), are now electing ideological stalwarts, such as David Vitter (R-La.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
"The Senate is predicated on the ability of people being able to work together," said former senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who was majority whip for much of Lott's years as majority leader. "I'm not throwing rocks at anybody, but there's just been a lot less of that."
Former majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) agreed: "Senator Lott's resignation means the loss of one of the few Republicans in leadership who often excelled in finding compromise and common ground."
Lott has never been a policy moderate, inclined to reach agreement with Democrats on ideological grounds. But he has almost always been a pragmatist, relishing the art of the deal. Just last month, as he labored to crack a wall of Democratic opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Appeals Judge Leslie H. Southwick, Lott wondered aloud to an aide why he was working so hard for a man he did not really know and for someone who was much more closely allied with Mississippi's other Republican senator, Thad Cochran.
"I said to him, 'You know, it's not that you like Southwick. You just like the process. You want the deal,' and he just smiled," recalled the Lott aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was divulging private deliberations. "It was a game. It was, 'Let me figure out how to get this done.' "
Such dealmakers still wander the Senate's halls: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.). And others could arise as a generation schooled in pragmatism -- such as John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) -- heads for the exits next year.
"Just because an individual leaves doesn't mean you're not going to find new centers to structure work in the United States Senate," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to former majority leader (R-Tenn.). Lott would "be the first to say that no individual is indispensable."
But with the Senate almost dysfunctional, those new power centers are difficult to find.
"The Senate is still a great deliberative body," Nickles said. "But it's a little less congenial and a little too partisan."
Lott made a career out of the art of the deal. In the summer of 1996, after then-Sen. Robert J. Dole resigned to pursue the White House full time, Lott took the reins of a Senate that had ground to a halt as Democrats moved to thwart GOP accomplishments ahead of the presidential election. Lott implored his colleagues to act.
In short order, Congress approved a major overhaul of the nation's welfare laws, cleared a bevy of other bills and cut a deal with the Clinton White House on annual spending bills. After the election, Hoppe recalled, Clinton called Lott to joke that had he not gotten the Senate back on track, the Democrats might well have recaptured a chamber of Congress.
The next year, White House Chief of Staff Erskine B. Bowles and Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin -- both wealthy Wall Street financiers -- sat huddled in Lott's office, as Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tried to cut a final deal on a balanced budget agreement that included a cut to the capital gains tax rate.
"There they were, two Democrats who had been very successful in business, squaring off with two Republicans who didn't have two nickels to rub together," Hoppe recalled.
They struck a deal: Cut the capital gains rate and create a major federal program to offer health insurance to children of the working poor.
After the 2000 election, which left the Senate deadlocked at 50 seats apiece, Lott again struck a deal that angered many in his party. Although Republicans technically had control of the Senate with the vote of newly elected Vice President Cheney, Lott and Daschle agreed to evenly divide the committees. Moreover, they agreed, if one party won a majority midstream, either through a party switch, a resignation or a death, the other party would agree to relinquish control without a fight.
Lott reasoned that the deadlocked Senate could waste the first months of George W. Bush's fledgling presidency in a process fight, or he could relent early and get to work.
But such deals are getting harder to come by.
On June 7, as Lott absorbed increasingly virulent attacks from conservatives for his support of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, he took to the Senate floor for another appeal.
"This is the time where we are going to see whether we are a Senate anymore," he intoned. "Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote."
Three weeks later, the immigration bill fell to a Republican filibuster, and Congress slithered away from the issue.
In January, as a dormant Senate chamber entered its fourth hour of inaction and a major ethics bill lay tangled in knots, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took to the Senate floor with a plaintive plea.
"Here we are, the sun has set on Thursday. It is a quarter to 6. The sun officially went down at 5:13. We are like bats," the veteran lawmaker lamented to a near-empty chamber. "Hello, it is a quarter to 6. . . . I have called everybody involved. I have been to offices. I have been stirring around, scurrying around. Is there an agenda here?"
The next 10 months appear to have given him the answer. A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.
And on Monday, Lott, one of the Senate's consummate dealmakers, called it quits.
"Is he the most frustrated he's ever been? Probably not," said David Hoppe, Lott's longtime chief of staff, now with the lobbying firm Quinn, Gillespie & Associates. "But frustration is cumulative."
Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate. With the Senate populated by a record number of former House members, the rules of the Old Boys' Club are giving way to the partisan trench warfare and party-line votes that prevail in the House. States once represented by common-ground dealmakers, including John Breaux (D-La.), David L. Boren (D-Okla.), James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), are now electing ideological stalwarts, such as David Vitter (R-La.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
"The Senate is predicated on the ability of people being able to work together," said former senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who was majority whip for much of Lott's years as majority leader. "I'm not throwing rocks at anybody, but there's just been a lot less of that."
Former majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) agreed: "Senator Lott's resignation means the loss of one of the few Republicans in leadership who often excelled in finding compromise and common ground."
Lott has never been a policy moderate, inclined to reach agreement with Democrats on ideological grounds. But he has almost always been a pragmatist, relishing the art of the deal. Just last month, as he labored to crack a wall of Democratic opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Appeals Judge Leslie H. Southwick, Lott wondered aloud to an aide why he was working so hard for a man he did not really know and for someone who was much more closely allied with Mississippi's other Republican senator, Thad Cochran.
"I said to him, 'You know, it's not that you like Southwick. You just like the process. You want the deal,' and he just smiled," recalled the Lott aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was divulging private deliberations. "It was a game. It was, 'Let me figure out how to get this done.' "
Such dealmakers still wander the Senate's halls: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.). And others could arise as a generation schooled in pragmatism -- such as John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) -- heads for the exits next year.
"Just because an individual leaves doesn't mean you're not going to find new centers to structure work in the United States Senate," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to former majority leader (R-Tenn.). Lott would "be the first to say that no individual is indispensable."
But with the Senate almost dysfunctional, those new power centers are difficult to find.
"The Senate is still a great deliberative body," Nickles said. "But it's a little less congenial and a little too partisan."
Lott made a career out of the art of the deal. In the summer of 1996, after then-Sen. Robert J. Dole resigned to pursue the White House full time, Lott took the reins of a Senate that had ground to a halt as Democrats moved to thwart GOP accomplishments ahead of the presidential election. Lott implored his colleagues to act.
In short order, Congress approved a major overhaul of the nation's welfare laws, cleared a bevy of other bills and cut a deal with the Clinton White House on annual spending bills. After the election, Hoppe recalled, Clinton called Lott to joke that had he not gotten the Senate back on track, the Democrats might well have recaptured a chamber of Congress.
The next year, White House Chief of Staff Erskine B. Bowles and Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin -- both wealthy Wall Street financiers -- sat huddled in Lott's office, as Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tried to cut a final deal on a balanced budget agreement that included a cut to the capital gains tax rate.
"There they were, two Democrats who had been very successful in business, squaring off with two Republicans who didn't have two nickels to rub together," Hoppe recalled.
They struck a deal: Cut the capital gains rate and create a major federal program to offer health insurance to children of the working poor.
After the 2000 election, which left the Senate deadlocked at 50 seats apiece, Lott again struck a deal that angered many in his party. Although Republicans technically had control of the Senate with the vote of newly elected Vice President Cheney, Lott and Daschle agreed to evenly divide the committees. Moreover, they agreed, if one party won a majority midstream, either through a party switch, a resignation or a death, the other party would agree to relinquish control without a fight.
Lott reasoned that the deadlocked Senate could waste the first months of George W. Bush's fledgling presidency in a process fight, or he could relent early and get to work.
But such deals are getting harder to come by.
On June 7, as Lott absorbed increasingly virulent attacks from conservatives for his support of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, he took to the Senate floor for another appeal.
"This is the time where we are going to see whether we are a Senate anymore," he intoned. "Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote."
Three weeks later, the immigration bill fell to a Republican filibuster, and Congress slithered away from the issue.
2011 Rusted Metal Seamless Texture
sxk
05-18 10:02 AM
Here is my scenario;
My ex employer (ABC) applied for my green card in 2006. In 2007, I got my 140 approved and I applied for 485. In 2009, I changed jobs using my EAD. ABC still holds my H-1b. Also, I did not file for AC21 yet.
ABC still owes me close to 25k in back pay. I want to report them to Dept of labor and get my money back. What are my options and what are the ramifications of doing so on my green card process?
Questions
If ABC revoked my 140, what should I do? Can I still renew my EAD and AP and continue with my employment in US? My current company is a fortune 20 company and they will support me with any documentation needed?
Since, ABC still holds my h1b, aren't they liable to pay me till date?
Please advice
My ex employer (ABC) applied for my green card in 2006. In 2007, I got my 140 approved and I applied for 485. In 2009, I changed jobs using my EAD. ABC still holds my H-1b. Also, I did not file for AC21 yet.
ABC still owes me close to 25k in back pay. I want to report them to Dept of labor and get my money back. What are my options and what are the ramifications of doing so on my green card process?
Questions
If ABC revoked my 140, what should I do? Can I still renew my EAD and AP and continue with my employment in US? My current company is a fortune 20 company and they will support me with any documentation needed?
Since, ABC still holds my h1b, aren't they liable to pay me till date?
Please advice
more...
laborday
07-31 07:23 PM
Please update your information at http://www..com
This will help you and all.
This will help you and all.
mannishk
09-28 10:08 PM
Hello Attorney`s
I am in a weird situation here, I was Laid off on July 21st with pay in lieu until 4th August. I had applied for Change of Status to F2 (my wife is on F1) on 17th August. On 31st August I got a job offer and applied for H1B transfer to USCIS on 8th September (using 15th august paystub as the latest).
At the same time i filed to USCIS to revoke my F2 application.
Today I got a notice from USCIS that my application for change of status to F2 is approved as of 09/21/2009.
Now, I dont know what to do, does it mean I am now on F2? Is my H1B transfer application still valid or I need to apply again this time on premium processing.
What should be my next course of action. Any help in this regard would be highly appreciated.
Thanks so much..!!
Have a great day..!
I am in a weird situation here, I was Laid off on July 21st with pay in lieu until 4th August. I had applied for Change of Status to F2 (my wife is on F1) on 17th August. On 31st August I got a job offer and applied for H1B transfer to USCIS on 8th September (using 15th august paystub as the latest).
At the same time i filed to USCIS to revoke my F2 application.
Today I got a notice from USCIS that my application for change of status to F2 is approved as of 09/21/2009.
Now, I dont know what to do, does it mean I am now on F2? Is my H1B transfer application still valid or I need to apply again this time on premium processing.
What should be my next course of action. Any help in this regard would be highly appreciated.
Thanks so much..!!
Have a great day..!
more...
nobody
04-30 07:07 PM
Here's a stamp featuring my doggy. :P
2010 blotchy metal texture that
tinkugadu
10-26 09:20 PM
I am a person from SOuth India and i have been in US for the last four years and i came to US on F-1 and then changed to H-1B.
Am i eligible to apply at Delhi consulate for the H-1B stamping. This is my first H-1B stamping.
Am i eligible to apply at Delhi consulate for the H-1B stamping. This is my first H-1B stamping.
more...
kandhu
03-29 09:54 PM
The time spent in H4 does NOT count towards the 6 year H1 time. So in your case the H1 clock starts from Sep 2004.
hair blotchy metal texture that
dbevis
November 2nd, 2004, 06:19 AM
Sure doesn't sound right. I'd suggest some controlled tests, using a gray card (or even a white card). Check the actual color with your favorite editor (Photoshop, etc). It might be your monitor calibration, too.
At this point you don't really know if white balance WAS correct and, after the update, it's wrong - or vice versa.
Don
At this point you don't really know if white balance WAS correct and, after the update, it's wrong - or vice versa.
Don