semiGator
11-17 08:55 AM
I recently joined UF. I have some doubts on working on F1:
Can I work on F1 outside the campus?
How many hours can I work and does it have to be related to the studies I am pursuing?
Thank you for helping me.
Can I work on F1 outside the campus?
How many hours can I work and does it have to be related to the studies I am pursuing?
Thank you for helping me.
wallpaper est short hairstyles for
diptam
06-29 09:08 AM
1) If A# is not available so we need to populate it with I-94# ? I got
this weird idea from Point 10 of I-765 form where it says A# or I-94#
Of course in other places it just asks A# ( specially in I-131 form)
2) For I-131 there are lot of doubts - want to double check
a) Class of Admission - ?
b) A# is the very first Information sought !!
c) Date of Intended Departure and Expected length of Trip
d) For how many Trips you intend to use
3) In G-325A Bigraphic form also at the end - it again asks for
ALIEN REGISTRATION NUMBER - what is the that ??
Thanks,
Diptam
this weird idea from Point 10 of I-765 form where it says A# or I-94#
Of course in other places it just asks A# ( specially in I-131 form)
2) For I-131 there are lot of doubts - want to double check
a) Class of Admission - ?
b) A# is the very first Information sought !!
c) Date of Intended Departure and Expected length of Trip
d) For how many Trips you intend to use
3) In G-325A Bigraphic form also at the end - it again asks for
ALIEN REGISTRATION NUMBER - what is the that ??
Thanks,
Diptam
savioz
02-02 10:55 AM
Currently I�m holding h1 and same time has AOS with my existing employer. I�m continuing my employment based on h1 and use Advance parole for travel purpose. My employer mentioned about not revoking I-140, even if I move to new employer. Since with new client, I�m transferring my H1 visa, I have 2 options with regard to my AOS portability
1) Either just transfers my h1 without porting AOS with new client. Continue with my AOS with old employer, since he won�t revoke my I-140 and provide support for future employment.
2) H1 transfer and Porting my AOS with new client and it does require my job and description mentioned in I-140 matches with current offer.
I would really appreciate, if you provide your valuable suggestion/recommendation. The best option to go ahead with.
1) Either just transfers my h1 without porting AOS with new client. Continue with my AOS with old employer, since he won�t revoke my I-140 and provide support for future employment.
2) H1 transfer and Porting my AOS with new client and it does require my job and description mentioned in I-140 matches with current offer.
I would really appreciate, if you provide your valuable suggestion/recommendation. The best option to go ahead with.
2011 flat top haircuts
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
more...
panacea
07-18 03:07 PM
But I don't know what will happen to an extension that you already received.......
chanduv23
09-14 04:59 PM
Don't miss any of the events
more...
EkAurAaya
06-14 09:59 AM
ENJOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!
Everyone has 1 month file and forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
Uparwala deta hai to chappar faaad ke deta hai!
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html
Everyone has 1 month file and forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
Uparwala deta hai to chappar faaad ke deta hai!
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html
2010 long hairstyles for fine hair.
Lasantha
05-02 01:12 PM
LOL ! too late for what?
more...
aroranuj
07-28 03:20 PM
My I-140 was denied by TSC early last year. We sent in an MTR/Appeal on the denial. The case was sent over by the TSC to AAO. We received an RFE from the AAO on the appeal a couple of months back. We responded back to the RFE within the required time frame.
My attorney just informed me this week that the case has been transferred back to the USCIS from the AAO. Can anyone please tell me if this means that my case has been approved or denied? Also how long can the USCIS sit on it before adjudicating? I'm assuming that the AAO has passed a decision, thats why they have sent it back to USCIS....
PLEASE HELP!!!
My attorney just informed me this week that the case has been transferred back to the USCIS from the AAO. Can anyone please tell me if this means that my case has been approved or denied? Also how long can the USCIS sit on it before adjudicating? I'm assuming that the AAO has passed a decision, thats why they have sent it back to USCIS....
PLEASE HELP!!!
hair tattoo est make hairstyles
Blog Feeds
01-30 06:40 AM
Last week, White House adviser David Axelrod noted that immigration reform would not happen in the near term unless there was bipartisan support. That's really always been the case, but the comment seems consistent with something said this week by Senate Democratic leaders (as noted in an email alert sent by America's Voice today): During a news conference held by Senate Democratic leaders yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) both made clear their unequivocal support for comprehensive immigration reform and outlined their efforts...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/two-plus-two.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/two-plus-two.html)
more...
mkamishetti
07-25 06:20 PM
hi, any suggestions on the following thank you note,
�Thank you for your efforts to accept our I- 485 application and other applications filed on early hours of july 2nd towards obtaining permanant residency and serve the people of this great country . And for relief announced with the DOS visa bulletin on the 17th of July and the USCIS decision to allow 31 additional days for filing the petitions. This means a lot to my family and me. We whole-heartedly appreciate your gesture.�
�Thank you for your efforts to accept our I- 485 application and other applications filed on early hours of july 2nd towards obtaining permanant residency and serve the people of this great country . And for relief announced with the DOS visa bulletin on the 17th of July and the USCIS decision to allow 31 additional days for filing the petitions. This means a lot to my family and me. We whole-heartedly appreciate your gesture.�
hot Beautiful Best Haircuts for
poarhc
09-21 10:31 AM
Here are my details
1) 3 Years Bachelor degrees (B.Sc) in science from Andhra University,India
2) 2 Years Masters degree in science (M.Sc), Andhra University,India
3) Having 9 years of continuous software experience (prior to present employer)
Am I eligible to file Perm Labor under EB2 category?
The job with my company is EB2 eligible (Requirement is Bachelors degree and 7 years experience).
As per my education evaluation (done some time back for H1B), mentioned that my above 2 degrees are equivalent to Bachelors degree of science (BS) in USA.
Please provide your valuable suggestions/advices.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
1) 3 Years Bachelor degrees (B.Sc) in science from Andhra University,India
2) 2 Years Masters degree in science (M.Sc), Andhra University,India
3) Having 9 years of continuous software experience (prior to present employer)
Am I eligible to file Perm Labor under EB2 category?
The job with my company is EB2 eligible (Requirement is Bachelors degree and 7 years experience).
As per my education evaluation (done some time back for H1B), mentioned that my above 2 degrees are equivalent to Bachelors degree of science (BS) in USA.
Please provide your valuable suggestions/advices.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
more...
house short hair styles fine hair
seltzer
02-10 01:05 AM
Since you're already using EAD, you are no less safer to take up a new job. The most important thing is to be able to keep renewing your EAD til your GC arrives.
tattoo Short Hairstyles For Fine Hair
Blog Feeds
06-11 06:40 AM
With USCIS filing fees spewing higher than the BP oil spill, you'd think the President and Congress would be holding press conferences to propose a legislative fix. But, alas, immigrants cannot vote, so who cares? Perhaps their U.S. citizen spouses, parents, sons and daughters, siblings and employers who have sponsored them for green cards and temporary working visas. Also, the Immigration Examiners who may lose their jobs as ever-higher filing fees deter immigrants from applying for naturalization and other immigration benefits. Back when I worked as an INS Citizenship Attorney, the cost of applying for U.S. citizenship was a mere...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/06/uscis-fee-increases-dollars-and-sense.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/06/uscis-fee-increases-dollars-and-sense.html)
more...
pictures Hairstyles For Long Hairs
$eeGrEeN
07-13 07:36 PM
For Christ's sake , it is LOSE , with a single O , not LOOSE
dresses im bored with mу long hair
sadib888
05-18 11:52 AM
So i have only been driving for 3 years, never been pulled over, and no accidents.
more...
makeup Winter 2010 Best Hairstyles
ragz4u
05-30 08:28 AM
Thanks a ton to Prabir for helping us out with this article. Thanks also to Dave Williams for writing this excellent article.
Dave heard about us through our Washington Post article and had contacted us via email. Prabir, who is from that area, willingly agreed to speak to him about issues faced by Legal High-Skilled immigrants
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=15537&change_well_id=2
Dave heard about us through our Washington Post article and had contacted us via email. Prabir, who is from that area, willingly agreed to speak to him about issues faced by Legal High-Skilled immigrants
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=15537&change_well_id=2
girlfriend free hairdos for long hair top
surabhi
07-23 09:59 AM
Hi,
Apologize for starting new thread, but this is an urgent request and need attention.
I need to respond to a RFE related to proving Programmer Analyst being a Speciaity occupation.
I researched and found a memo from Terrance Way, Director INS issued a memo on this on December 22, 2000 and is available on AILA Infonet
AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 01040603
I couldnt locate this memo in USCIS policy guidance memoranda search.
Can some one with access to AILA Infonet, please send me this document
Thanks in advance
Regards
Apologize for starting new thread, but this is an urgent request and need attention.
I need to respond to a RFE related to proving Programmer Analyst being a Speciaity occupation.
I researched and found a memo from Terrance Way, Director INS issued a memo on this on December 22, 2000 and is available on AILA Infonet
AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 01040603
I couldnt locate this memo in USCIS policy guidance memoranda search.
Can some one with access to AILA Infonet, please send me this document
Thanks in advance
Regards
hairstyles medium hairstyles for fine hair 2011. people, Medium; people, Medium
seeniraj
03-03 04:24 PM
Please share the reason once you receive them
Pasquale
01-19 09:03 AM
Sweet effect! it looks like a sprinkler :)
mikec
05-15 08:33 PM
hello, i really need some one to clarify this information for me.
when i first started working with my company i did not have work authorization and basically said i am a US citizen, i never had any problems for 4 years, i am a permanent residence now and got my green card this year. the company now nows that i lied 4 years ago when i got hired and i was not allowed to work but am fully eligible to work now becaue of change in status to PR. can the company resubmit a new i9 form with the correct information and if i will be in any trouble with USCIS.
What is the law for someone who worked illegaly but got his or her status changed to PR.
THANK YOU
when i first started working with my company i did not have work authorization and basically said i am a US citizen, i never had any problems for 4 years, i am a permanent residence now and got my green card this year. the company now nows that i lied 4 years ago when i got hired and i was not allowed to work but am fully eligible to work now becaue of change in status to PR. can the company resubmit a new i9 form with the correct information and if i will be in any trouble with USCIS.
What is the law for someone who worked illegaly but got his or her status changed to PR.
THANK YOU
No comments:
Post a Comment