kanyewest
04-20 02:28 PM
I was on H1B until Feb 2009 and I applied for COS to H4 in Feb 2009. USCIS has received my COS application, and it is still pending with USCIS for 2 months now.
1. Can a new employer apply for a new cap-exempt H1B for me (technically a transfer, as I was on H1B for 2 years before)?
2. In that case, do I need to submit paystubs and W2s from when I last held H1B status?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Note: I did not see any posts related to this particular scenario, hence had to create a new thread.
1. Can a new employer apply for a new cap-exempt H1B for me (technically a transfer, as I was on H1B for 2 years before)?
2. In that case, do I need to submit paystubs and W2s from when I last held H1B status?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Note: I did not see any posts related to this particular scenario, hence had to create a new thread.
wallpaper Photoshop CS or Elements.
gcwait2007
06-30 12:37 AM
I am on EAD and I dont have any current employment, except a good faith future employment offer. I am already in bench more than 4 months and tired of it. I want to travel to India and come back after 2 months, using AP. What sort of questions being asked while entering USA and what documents I need to provide?
My friends are advising me not to leave the country. Please advise.
Thanks in advance
My friends are advising me not to leave the country. Please advise.
Thanks in advance
HalfDog
07-01 11:21 PM
uhm may i have this monitor?
2011 xray middot; x-ray middot; photoshop
raviram1980
01-31 06:30 AM
Hi Gurus,
I wanted to know if I can work for H-1B with my current company which holds my H-1B and work outside with another company on EAD. Is there a chance that I may loose my H-1B status if I work with EAD.
Please let me know,
Thanks,
I wanted to know if I can work for H-1B with my current company which holds my H-1B and work outside with another company on EAD. Is there a chance that I may loose my H-1B status if I work with EAD.
Please let me know,
Thanks,
more...
jambvan
04-10 11:47 AM
Hello Everyone,
If primary applicant of I-485 uses AC21 and Spouse of primary applicant not planning to work for at least 3 years because of infant kids. Could we please share what are advantages and disadvantages you can think of for not applying an EAD for secondary applicant until ready to find a job?
Following are list I can think of.
Disadvantages
- Secondary will not get SSN and tax rebate
- Would have to renew for 3 years even though not going to use
Advantages
-If get lucky get a Green card without using EAD ever
I have heard issues with Driving license but that's with having EAD.
If primary applicant of I-485 uses AC21 and Spouse of primary applicant not planning to work for at least 3 years because of infant kids. Could we please share what are advantages and disadvantages you can think of for not applying an EAD for secondary applicant until ready to find a job?
Following are list I can think of.
Disadvantages
- Secondary will not get SSN and tax rebate
- Would have to renew for 3 years even though not going to use
Advantages
-If get lucky get a Green card without using EAD ever
I have heard issues with Driving license but that's with having EAD.
jeevan
05-13 01:49 PM
I need your suggestions on my situation and below is the same.
1. Priority date (04Oct2006) is current in June bulletin
2. Applied labor & I40 with previous employer.
3. Applied I485 in July 2007 ( applied I 485 before marriage) with previous employer
4. Joined other employer on Sep 2009
5. Not applied AC21 portability to new employer.
Now my priority date is going to be current as of June 1st, so need to file I-485 for my wife. Based on my situation could you please suggest the best approach to apply dependent's I485. i.e Apply dependent I485 from previous employer or through my new employer asking for AC21 along with employment verification letter).
Appreciate your help in advance.
1. Priority date (04Oct2006) is current in June bulletin
2. Applied labor & I40 with previous employer.
3. Applied I485 in July 2007 ( applied I 485 before marriage) with previous employer
4. Joined other employer on Sep 2009
5. Not applied AC21 portability to new employer.
Now my priority date is going to be current as of June 1st, so need to file I-485 for my wife. Based on my situation could you please suggest the best approach to apply dependent's I485. i.e Apply dependent I485 from previous employer or through my new employer asking for AC21 along with employment verification letter).
Appreciate your help in advance.
more...
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
2010 Coca-Cola Xray pictures
![How To Xray Pictures Photoshop. [] Photoshop X-Ray Realities](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKr9YCwLbbByIoHS6cfvYFd4NvdYXU76IT36g6GUCyJpyd-Xxmey2IsFGEEuxtd2OwPcBhnOHTYbSHsdC4XYokpMbtDPp6r_bv2Ilk6onU8Hc4s3fkkK5uhWF0Hri3Z24KV_4wbwUKguA/s1600/8.jpg "[] Photoshop X-Ray Realities")
k3GC
07-02 12:16 PM
How come a govt. organization that is never known to do things on time, all of sudden is able to approve 60000 GCs in such a short period ? Why did they have to do it by end of June ? If they had done that by end of July would anything have been different for the folks who were getting the Green Cards - NO.
I think this was all planned. There was a reason why the numbers were made current and there is a reason why the numbers became unavailable.
I think we should get to the bottom of this. This stinks ......
I think this was all planned. There was a reason why the numbers were made current and there is a reason why the numbers became unavailable.
I think we should get to the bottom of this. This stinks ......
more...
purgan
09-23 02:00 PM
DOL HALF WAY THROUGH LABOR CERTIFICATION BACKLOG
Sep 22, 2006
The US Department of Labor is reporting to the American Immigration Lawyers Association that it has adjudicated about half of the estimated 362,000 labor certification cases at its backlog reduction center and that it has issued 45 day letters in every case now.
Sep 22, 2006
The US Department of Labor is reporting to the American Immigration Lawyers Association that it has adjudicated about half of the estimated 362,000 labor certification cases at its backlog reduction center and that it has issued 45 day letters in every case now.
hair X RAY FASHION PHOTOSHOP easton
eilsoe
09-25 11:53 AM
Does anyone think this looks like a warp effect at all? I'm thinking on using it in my tutorials section on my future site...
www.avalon-rev.dk/warp.jpg
warning: 270Kb, 1280x1024)
www.avalon-rev.dk/warp.jpg
warning: 270Kb, 1280x1024)
more...
kirupa
10-08 01:03 AM
Hi icube,
Unfortunately, ChangePropertyAction today doesn't allow you access attached properties. I'll add that as something we consider fixing in a future release :)
Cheers,
Kirupa
Unfortunately, ChangePropertyAction today doesn't allow you access attached properties. I'll add that as something we consider fixing in a future release :)
Cheers,
Kirupa
hot X-Ray Produced In Photoshop
julsun
01-20 10:26 PM
Hi All,
We had filed for AP from NSC for my wife in Oct. She needs to travel on 1st Feb, so we took a local infopass appointment hoping to have local office issue AP. Two days before our local Infopass appointment, online status for my wife's AP said that they have requested further evidence. We are yet to receive the document for same so do not know what evidence they are asking for.
On Friday, when my wife went to local Infopass office, she was told that they can not issue local AP if her case has an RFE at NSC center, and was told to wait for the document. We are in a bind right now as she needs to travel and local office wont issue AP.
Any suggestions for this one? Have already contacted NSC twice to get details on RFE but they are also saying wait for the letter :-(
Thanks
We had filed for AP from NSC for my wife in Oct. She needs to travel on 1st Feb, so we took a local infopass appointment hoping to have local office issue AP. Two days before our local Infopass appointment, online status for my wife's AP said that they have requested further evidence. We are yet to receive the document for same so do not know what evidence they are asking for.
On Friday, when my wife went to local Infopass office, she was told that they can not issue local AP if her case has an RFE at NSC center, and was told to wait for the document. We are in a bind right now as she needs to travel and local office wont issue AP.
Any suggestions for this one? Have already contacted NSC twice to get details on RFE but they are also saying wait for the letter :-(
Thanks
more...
house extra digit xray gif
ras
07-19 03:13 PM
If am not wrong, I think Attorney Prashanthi is from NYC/New Jersy area. Check and confirm for yourself www.reddyesq.com (http://www.reddyesq.com)
She is one of the attorneys who answers questions on IV.
She is one of the attorneys who answers questions on IV.
tattoo Xray unequaled photoshop
bijualex29
05-29 02:09 PM
Where is the county Cap in this bill?
more...
pictures Space Shuttle X-Ray windows
subikarthik
09-16 03:07 PM
Hi, I on H4..now 485 filed/pending...H1B also filed...so should I send a cancellation for my H1B ?
dresses Re: x-ray photoshop tutorial
Sheetal_MA
10-16 05:39 PM
I know that most of the people on this forum are EB filers. However, for the few stragglers here who are filing in the family based category, please share your experience on filing the I-751 (petition to remove the condition on the GC). Specifically, I'd like to know the following:
- Estimated time from filing date to receipt of permanent GC
- Did you have interview with USCIS?
- Compare / contrast with first interview during the AOS process.
Thanks
- Estimated time from filing date to receipt of permanent GC
- Did you have interview with USCIS?
- Compare / contrast with first interview during the AOS process.
Thanks
more...
makeup How to get X-ray effects with
rajmehrotra
10-22 02:08 PM
Please check:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/11/INGHT44JFQ1.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/11/INGHT44JFQ1.DTL
girlfriend Xray Brush Set
Sub Zero
11-13 04:58 PM
Hi, I am looking for some small work which I can do in PHP + MySQL. I am charging very little for small work so I can raise cash for my major projects.
Things like member systems are small projects.
If you are interested, you can contact me by:
Email - mail@austers.co.uk
MSN - mail@austers.co.uk
AIM - Austers27
Thanks in advance, Sub Zero
Things like member systems are small projects.
If you are interested, you can contact me by:
Email - mail@austers.co.uk
MSN - mail@austers.co.uk
AIM - Austers27
Thanks in advance, Sub Zero
hairstyles about photoshop Xray of
pa_arora
02-07 04:03 PM
APs are taking twice as much as EADs. Does anyone has any idea why?
I see 2 LUDs on my AP on 5th and 6th but no news till now. Is it coming?
thanks
I see 2 LUDs on my AP on 5th and 6th but no news till now. Is it coming?
thanks
uslegals
01-07 11:35 AM
Hello,
We have our 485 interview's next week @ the Baltimore Field Office. My PD is current for EB-2. My case is pretty straightforward so hopefully should not be a issue.
Would appreciate any comments from folks in MD who have been interviewed @ the Fallon Federal Building in downtown.
Particularly - can they approve our cases right there & then.? Will they stamp our passports for approval since PD is current for January 2011.? Can there be any issued with visa number not available, etc. ?
Any advice is appreciated.
Thanks!
We have our 485 interview's next week @ the Baltimore Field Office. My PD is current for EB-2. My case is pretty straightforward so hopefully should not be a issue.
Would appreciate any comments from folks in MD who have been interviewed @ the Fallon Federal Building in downtown.
Particularly - can they approve our cases right there & then.? Will they stamp our passports for approval since PD is current for January 2011.? Can there be any issued with visa number not available, etc. ?
Any advice is appreciated.
Thanks!
ilyaslamasse
03-12 04:03 PM
Then I can't add actions to the frames and stuff...
pom 0]
pom 0]
No comments:
Post a Comment