fide_champ
03-14 02:10 PM
hello,
My mother has 10 yr multiple entry visa. She is planning to travel from Bangalore India to USA through Lufthansa Airways. She has a stop over at Frankfurt airport for about 3 hrs. Does she need to get a transit visa for that. Any recent experience or suggestion? Thanks.
If you have a valid US/Canada visa stamp, then you do not need a transit visa for Germany.
My mother has 10 yr multiple entry visa. She is planning to travel from Bangalore India to USA through Lufthansa Airways. She has a stop over at Frankfurt airport for about 3 hrs. Does she need to get a transit visa for that. Any recent experience or suggestion? Thanks.
If you have a valid US/Canada visa stamp, then you do not need a transit visa for Germany.
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. happy birthday quotes funny for friends. Happy Birthday - General; Happy Birthday - General. pixelvandal. Sep 6, 07:48 PM
varshadas
04-21 03:56 PM
I am not sure which location you went to. I went to the infopass in Newark, NJ and I was able to get status on name check. They could not give any other information, but they were able to tell me that my name check was complete.
As mentioned in an earlier post, you can always leverage your Congressman.
Thanks
Varsha
As mentioned in an earlier post, you can always leverage your Congressman.
Thanks
Varsha
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. funny happy birthday quotes
Jayr
07-05 02:28 PM
I think the reasons may be a little more subtle than mean spiritedness and malice. Makes me wonder how performance is evaluated at the USCIS. If their evaluation system is such that a large number of applicants in backlog looks tacky on their report card, then that's incentive enough for them to not want a deluge of applicants.
by now everybody might have heard stories about how USCIS pulled staff and worked overtime and weekends to utilize the 60k visas in one month to prevent the july 485 filings.
What I am wondering is why did they do it. One obvious reason is the incresed fee comming into effect from July 30 2007. In addition to it what are the other reasons.
Is there any agenda within USCIS to prevent people from getting EAD and ac21 benefits?
Is USCIS filled with anti immgrant mentality who have takem upon themselves to make our lives difficult?
by now everybody might have heard stories about how USCIS pulled staff and worked overtime and weekends to utilize the 60k visas in one month to prevent the july 485 filings.
What I am wondering is why did they do it. One obvious reason is the incresed fee comming into effect from July 30 2007. In addition to it what are the other reasons.
Is there any agenda within USCIS to prevent people from getting EAD and ac21 benefits?
Is USCIS filled with anti immgrant mentality who have takem upon themselves to make our lives difficult?
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. happy birthday quotes funny for friends. happy her irthday funny; happy her irthday funny. Epic Xbox Revie. Apr 21, 11:19 AM
a_yaja
06-18 12:34 PM
babu123
When had filed my I140 I did send my coworkers reference letter ...yet i got a rfe requesting for employer's experience letter..
I was in a similar but totally different situation. I wanted to use the experience as a Grad. Assistant for my I-140 stage. The problem was, my professor was no longer with the University. My lawyer suggested that I obtain a letter from the professor on a plain paper and make sure that it is notarized. The letter had his address and cell phone number and "Formerly, Asst. Professor at xxx Iniv".
There was no issue with the I-140 approval.
When had filed my I140 I did send my coworkers reference letter ...yet i got a rfe requesting for employer's experience letter..
I was in a similar but totally different situation. I wanted to use the experience as a Grad. Assistant for my I-140 stage. The problem was, my professor was no longer with the University. My lawyer suggested that I obtain a letter from the professor on a plain paper and make sure that it is notarized. The letter had his address and cell phone number and "Formerly, Asst. Professor at xxx Iniv".
There was no issue with the I-140 approval.
more...
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. happy birthday quotes for best
pappusheth
05-02 07:29 PM
Once you get the I-94 at POE, the I-94 which comes with the I-797 become invalid. Always the latest I-94 counts.
snathan: In that case my I-94 will be valid thru August 2009 which is the expiry date of current my stamped visa. Then what happens after August 2009? Since my I-94 will be expired, is that considered an unlawful presence? If so, what should I do then?
We came back yesterday May 1st, my wife's stamp is only until May 31st and mine until Aug 30th but we had the extended approval notices. Both H1s. We both got stamped until the end of the extension date on the I 797. I don't think you'll have any problem.
mckottayam: did you tell the IO explicitly that you had I-797 extensions approved to get I-94 stamped thru end of I-797?
Lastly, for my wife, who will be entering on AP will be given one year of I-94. what happens after that I-94 is expired? Is that considered as unlawful presence? In that case will she have to renew her I-94? In general for people who enter on AP, what happens after their I-94 is expired??
I appreciate your responses on this I-94 expiry piece.. I want to make sure that either me or my wife are not staying with expired I-94.
Thanks.
snathan: In that case my I-94 will be valid thru August 2009 which is the expiry date of current my stamped visa. Then what happens after August 2009? Since my I-94 will be expired, is that considered an unlawful presence? If so, what should I do then?
We came back yesterday May 1st, my wife's stamp is only until May 31st and mine until Aug 30th but we had the extended approval notices. Both H1s. We both got stamped until the end of the extension date on the I 797. I don't think you'll have any problem.
mckottayam: did you tell the IO explicitly that you had I-797 extensions approved to get I-94 stamped thru end of I-797?
Lastly, for my wife, who will be entering on AP will be given one year of I-94. what happens after that I-94 is expired? Is that considered as unlawful presence? In that case will she have to renew her I-94? In general for people who enter on AP, what happens after their I-94 is expired??
I appreciate your responses on this I-94 expiry piece.. I want to make sure that either me or my wife are not staying with expired I-94.
Thanks.
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. irthday quotes in spanish.
GlobalCitizen
07-26 09:07 AM
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife�s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife�s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife�s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife�s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
more...
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. irthday quotes funny for
WaitingForMyGC
06-25 09:19 AM
My Company is asking me to sign a new 2 year contract with them to get employment verification letter required for I-485. Is this legal?
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. funny birthday wishes. happy
ssingh92
05-03 01:17 PM
Hey - can you please tell me where you applied for the 4 yr DL. I have always got my DL extended only till I-94 expiry or of late - till my EAD expiry. I renew my DL in Columbus. Can you please share your experience as to where you got your DL renewed?
I think PA is very liberal in issuing the Dr. Lic. Last year (2008) I cam back from India using AP and I received my Dr. Lic renewed upto 2012. I just applied online printed the form, went Norristown (near King Of Prussia), showed him old unexpired Dr Lic, He took my picture and issued me Dr Lic..
This is why I dont want to move in other state. If I had to then I will keep my permanent address in PA, twice in a month will come back here.
I think PA is very liberal in issuing the Dr. Lic. Last year (2008) I cam back from India using AP and I received my Dr. Lic renewed upto 2012. I just applied online printed the form, went Norristown (near King Of Prussia), showed him old unexpired Dr Lic, He took my picture and issued me Dr Lic..
This is why I dont want to move in other state. If I had to then I will keep my permanent address in PA, twice in a month will come back here.
more...
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. funny_happy_Birthday_song.mp4
freedom_fighter
01-26 09:09 PM
me/spouse finally got our GCs in mail today. Interestingly the green card is not green, it just white mostly
best of luck to others in the journey.
best of luck to others in the journey.
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. funny happy birthday wishes
Rb_newsletter
09-21 06:31 PM
My previous employer got to know about this and sued me for stupid and fake charges.
What was the fake charges?
In which state you and your employer were then?
What was the fake charges?
In which state you and your employer were then?
more...
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. Funny Happy Birthday Quotes
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. happy birthday quotes for
fromnaija
07-20 11:24 AM
File for her as CP. Whenever she is ready to move here have her get an H4 visa and then change CP to AOS when she gets here.
Caveat: I am not an attorney so ask your lawyer if this is a feasible option.
Caveat: I am not an attorney so ask your lawyer if this is a feasible option.
more...
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. happy birthday funny quotes
eilsoe
10-03 01:41 PM
Yes... someone should start a SPAM thread...
to let off some agressions that is...
ahh what the h*ll.. we answered his question in the beginning...
to let off some agressions that is...
ahh what the h*ll.. we answered his question in the beginning...
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. happy birthday quotes funny
nashim
04-07 02:35 PM
gcisadawg,
I am unable to answer your question since I do not know, anyway I am also planning to invite my mother-in-law, what are documents required for B-2 visa? Do I need to send original birth certificate? Thanks
I am unable to answer your question since I do not know, anyway I am also planning to invite my mother-in-law, what are documents required for B-2 visa? Do I need to send original birth certificate? Thanks
more...
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. Birthday Quotes Funny For
up_guy
04-12 10:59 PM
I also have the same question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
when I check 2 yrs old EAD application my attorney had used (c)(0)(9)
Is that right or it should be (c)(9) or
it should be (c) (09)
Please help folks
I put application date as when ever I signed the form and dated it. I think its no big deal, if you attach copy of previous EAD...
Please suggest.
when I check 2 yrs old EAD application my attorney had used (c)(0)(9)
Is that right or it should be (c)(9) or
it should be (c) (09)
Please help folks
I put application date as when ever I signed the form and dated it. I think its no big deal, if you attach copy of previous EAD...
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. happy birthday quotes funny
waitingnwaiting
11-16 01:35 PM
ABC NEWS: Will Congress Vote on DREAM Act for Illegal Immigrants in 2010?
Senate Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi Weigh Lame-Duck Vote on Immigration
By DEVIN DWYER
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15, 2010�
Senate Vote on DREAM Act, Immigration in Lame-Duck Congress? - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-vote-dream-act-immigration-lame-duck-congress/story?id=12136182)
They came through for him during a tight reelection campaign in Nevada. Now Hispanic voters are looking to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to return the favor.
Reid has promised a Senate vote this year on a small piece of immigration legislation known as the DREAM Act, which would give hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants a conditional path to legal residency.
"The answer is yes," Reid told Univision host Jorge Ramos in October when pressed about whether there will be a vote. "I have the right to bring that up any time I want."
As Congress reconvenes this week for the final session of the year, Reid now has roughly a month to make good on his promise.
Many immigrants and immigrant advocates, particularly Hispanics, have been disappointed by Congress' inaction on legislation to address the situation of millions of the country's undocumented immigrants, particularly those who are young children.
However, Republican opposition to efforts to legalize undocumented immigrants, a packed end-of-year legislative agenda and a bleak track record for controversial bills during lame-duck sessions all cast doubt on chances of the bill's passage this year.
The DREAM Act would grant legal status to immigrants who complete college or at least two years of military service and maintain "good moral character." It would apply to immigrants younger than 36 years old who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children under the supervision of their parents.
"We are very confident this will come up for a vote," said Flavia de la Fuente of the adovacy group DreamActivist.org. "We are confident that the American people and that the moderate GOP will make the right choice when it comes to investing in the future of this country."
Reid attempted to attach the measure as an amendment to the defense authorization bill in September, drawing intense protest from Republicans, who accused the Democrat of playing pre-election politics.
Ultimately, Republicans blocked the effort to bring the defense bill to the floor for debate, precluding a chance of adding the DREAM Act. The bill also included a repeal of the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy.
"We're going to vote on the Dream Act; it's only a question of when," Reid said after the vote. "It's a question of fairness. This is not the end of this."
Many activists on both sides of the issue agree, however, that chances of the bill's passage are only going to grow dimmer with an influx of Republicans set to join the House and Senate in January.
Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, a group that favors tighter immigration controls and supports Republicans' efforts to block the DREAM Act, said the measure is flawed.
"Some of these [immigrants] are compelling cases, no doubt about it," said Beck. "But you've got to draw some lines a lot narrower than the DREAM Act draws them. This is about giving millions of illegal aliens permanent work permits, and I don't think in this economy that this is a very happy time to be doing that."
President Obama supports the legislation, as does Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who says it would help recruitment, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who says it's "the right thing to do for our country."
But it's unclear whether the administration will push behind the scenes in the weeks ahead to make it a legislative priority. The Congress already faces challenging debates over whether to extend the Bush tax cuts, fund the federal government through 2011, and approve a controversial defense spending bill.
"The president supports the DREAM Act and I support the DREAM Act. The president supports immigration reform, and I support immigration reform. And how Congress takes that up is for the Congress and the leadership to decide," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in September.
The DREAM Act has received some bipartisan Senate support in the years since it was first introduced in 2001. It was approved as part of immigration reform bill in 2006, but the package later failed in the House. In 2007, the Act was filibustered when it came up for an up-or-down vote.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided not to list DREAM Act as a priority for this week, a senior Democratic aide told ABC News. But it could come up after Thanksgiving.
According to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, about 2 million of the nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. could be eligible for legalization under the DREAM Act.
The group also estimates, however, that only 825,000 of those immigrants would ultimately take advantage of the law if it were enacted.
ABC News' John Parkinson contributed to this report.
DESERT NEWS: Sign the Utah Compact
Published: Sunday, Nov. 14, 2010 12:00 a.m. MST
Sign the Utah Compact | Deseret News (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700081235/Sign-the-Utah-Compact.html)
Already recognized by Forbes Magazine as the top state in the nation for business, Utah further burnished its reputation for pro-family and pro-growth policies this week as civic, business and religious leaders signed the Utah Compact, a declaration for principled immigration reform.
Historically, during periods of economic recession, business leaders and policy-makers have reverted to what economists call zero-sum thinking � the belief that one person gains only when another loses. When we only have so much pie, it is entirely rational to worry about how the pieces are divvied out. And when the pie is shrinking, the rules for who gets a slice become even more critical.
Fixed-pied concerns are undoubtedly part of what lies behind the complex debate about immigration. There is understandable fear that immigrants might take increasingly scarce jobs and resources from citizens. And any public expenditure on immigrants, whether through social services or law enforcement, draws down a limited public treasury that deserves scrupulous stewardship.
But people also intuitively understand that the best way to ensure more pie over the long term is not to hoard what is being served right now, but instead figure out how to expand the pie. This is what economists call positive-sum thinking � the belief that through exchange we can expand the pie, not simply fret about how it is divided.
The recent recession, followed by a jobless recovery, has served up a fixed-pie economy. But zero-sum or fixed-pie thinking is never the path toward sustained prosperity. And as many of Utah's prominent civic, business, and religious leaders signed a declaration on immigration reform called the Utah Compact, they sent a powerful signal to the world that Utah embraces positive-sum, pie-expanding thought and policies. Instead of creating a hostile environment for immigrants, they have outlined thoughtful principles that embrace the promise afforded through immigration. They have sided with the consensus view of pro-growth free-market economists who recognize that immigration actually creates jobs and revenue. (www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/business/economy/31view.html)
Even more important than the powerful economic growth message inherent in the Utah Compact is its embrace of those core values that support a free, humane and prosperous society: respect for the rule of law, respect for families, respect for individual liberty and respect for the dignity and humanity of each individual. It emphasizes an orderly approach to the critically important concerns of enforcement and security.
The Utah Compact is not itself a policy � it is a thoughtful declaration of principles that lawmakers should use as they work to craft pragmatic legislation that helps our state deal with the problems and promise afforded by immigration. We are impressed by the array of distinguished civic, business, and ecclesiastical leaders who have signed the Utah Compact or endorsed its principles. We encourage our readers to read the Utah Compact (The Utah Compact - Read the Utah Compact (http://www.utahcompact.com)) and sign it.
Senate Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi Weigh Lame-Duck Vote on Immigration
By DEVIN DWYER
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15, 2010�
Senate Vote on DREAM Act, Immigration in Lame-Duck Congress? - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-vote-dream-act-immigration-lame-duck-congress/story?id=12136182)
They came through for him during a tight reelection campaign in Nevada. Now Hispanic voters are looking to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to return the favor.
Reid has promised a Senate vote this year on a small piece of immigration legislation known as the DREAM Act, which would give hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants a conditional path to legal residency.
"The answer is yes," Reid told Univision host Jorge Ramos in October when pressed about whether there will be a vote. "I have the right to bring that up any time I want."
As Congress reconvenes this week for the final session of the year, Reid now has roughly a month to make good on his promise.
Many immigrants and immigrant advocates, particularly Hispanics, have been disappointed by Congress' inaction on legislation to address the situation of millions of the country's undocumented immigrants, particularly those who are young children.
However, Republican opposition to efforts to legalize undocumented immigrants, a packed end-of-year legislative agenda and a bleak track record for controversial bills during lame-duck sessions all cast doubt on chances of the bill's passage this year.
The DREAM Act would grant legal status to immigrants who complete college or at least two years of military service and maintain "good moral character." It would apply to immigrants younger than 36 years old who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children under the supervision of their parents.
"We are very confident this will come up for a vote," said Flavia de la Fuente of the adovacy group DreamActivist.org. "We are confident that the American people and that the moderate GOP will make the right choice when it comes to investing in the future of this country."
Reid attempted to attach the measure as an amendment to the defense authorization bill in September, drawing intense protest from Republicans, who accused the Democrat of playing pre-election politics.
Ultimately, Republicans blocked the effort to bring the defense bill to the floor for debate, precluding a chance of adding the DREAM Act. The bill also included a repeal of the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy.
"We're going to vote on the Dream Act; it's only a question of when," Reid said after the vote. "It's a question of fairness. This is not the end of this."
Many activists on both sides of the issue agree, however, that chances of the bill's passage are only going to grow dimmer with an influx of Republicans set to join the House and Senate in January.
Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, a group that favors tighter immigration controls and supports Republicans' efforts to block the DREAM Act, said the measure is flawed.
"Some of these [immigrants] are compelling cases, no doubt about it," said Beck. "But you've got to draw some lines a lot narrower than the DREAM Act draws them. This is about giving millions of illegal aliens permanent work permits, and I don't think in this economy that this is a very happy time to be doing that."
President Obama supports the legislation, as does Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who says it would help recruitment, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who says it's "the right thing to do for our country."
But it's unclear whether the administration will push behind the scenes in the weeks ahead to make it a legislative priority. The Congress already faces challenging debates over whether to extend the Bush tax cuts, fund the federal government through 2011, and approve a controversial defense spending bill.
"The president supports the DREAM Act and I support the DREAM Act. The president supports immigration reform, and I support immigration reform. And how Congress takes that up is for the Congress and the leadership to decide," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in September.
The DREAM Act has received some bipartisan Senate support in the years since it was first introduced in 2001. It was approved as part of immigration reform bill in 2006, but the package later failed in the House. In 2007, the Act was filibustered when it came up for an up-or-down vote.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided not to list DREAM Act as a priority for this week, a senior Democratic aide told ABC News. But it could come up after Thanksgiving.
According to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, about 2 million of the nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. could be eligible for legalization under the DREAM Act.
The group also estimates, however, that only 825,000 of those immigrants would ultimately take advantage of the law if it were enacted.
ABC News' John Parkinson contributed to this report.
DESERT NEWS: Sign the Utah Compact
Published: Sunday, Nov. 14, 2010 12:00 a.m. MST
Sign the Utah Compact | Deseret News (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700081235/Sign-the-Utah-Compact.html)
Already recognized by Forbes Magazine as the top state in the nation for business, Utah further burnished its reputation for pro-family and pro-growth policies this week as civic, business and religious leaders signed the Utah Compact, a declaration for principled immigration reform.
Historically, during periods of economic recession, business leaders and policy-makers have reverted to what economists call zero-sum thinking � the belief that one person gains only when another loses. When we only have so much pie, it is entirely rational to worry about how the pieces are divvied out. And when the pie is shrinking, the rules for who gets a slice become even more critical.
Fixed-pied concerns are undoubtedly part of what lies behind the complex debate about immigration. There is understandable fear that immigrants might take increasingly scarce jobs and resources from citizens. And any public expenditure on immigrants, whether through social services or law enforcement, draws down a limited public treasury that deserves scrupulous stewardship.
But people also intuitively understand that the best way to ensure more pie over the long term is not to hoard what is being served right now, but instead figure out how to expand the pie. This is what economists call positive-sum thinking � the belief that through exchange we can expand the pie, not simply fret about how it is divided.
The recent recession, followed by a jobless recovery, has served up a fixed-pie economy. But zero-sum or fixed-pie thinking is never the path toward sustained prosperity. And as many of Utah's prominent civic, business, and religious leaders signed a declaration on immigration reform called the Utah Compact, they sent a powerful signal to the world that Utah embraces positive-sum, pie-expanding thought and policies. Instead of creating a hostile environment for immigrants, they have outlined thoughtful principles that embrace the promise afforded through immigration. They have sided with the consensus view of pro-growth free-market economists who recognize that immigration actually creates jobs and revenue. (www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/business/economy/31view.html)
Even more important than the powerful economic growth message inherent in the Utah Compact is its embrace of those core values that support a free, humane and prosperous society: respect for the rule of law, respect for families, respect for individual liberty and respect for the dignity and humanity of each individual. It emphasizes an orderly approach to the critically important concerns of enforcement and security.
The Utah Compact is not itself a policy � it is a thoughtful declaration of principles that lawmakers should use as they work to craft pragmatic legislation that helps our state deal with the problems and promise afforded by immigration. We are impressed by the array of distinguished civic, business, and ecclesiastical leaders who have signed the Utah Compact or endorsed its principles. We encourage our readers to read the Utah Compact (The Utah Compact - Read the Utah Compact (http://www.utahcompact.com)) and sign it.
more...
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. happy birthday quotes funny
arpu31
11-17 01:03 PM
I believe u can apply ur own H4. because u have the H1 approval from ur spouse. just download form from uscis website. there is complete instruction over there.
Thx
Thanks! But if I apply for my own H4, I would require my copy of I797 and the I94 attached to that. My employer doesnt provide me with the copy of those. Would the documents from my husband good enough to apply in US?
Arpu
Thx
Thanks! But if I apply for my own H4, I would require my copy of I797 and the I94 attached to that. My employer doesnt provide me with the copy of those. Would the documents from my husband good enough to apply in US?
Arpu
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. happy birthday wishes for
lazycis
04-17 04:51 PM
see http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/Pegasus%203-31-08.pdf
happy birthday quotes funny for friends. irthday quotes funny
nogc_noproblem
08-06 12:52 PM
CONGRATS!!!
Received an email from CRIS stating that Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident. Those who are tracking approval, check out IV profile/tracker.
Received an email from CRIS stating that Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident. Those who are tracking approval, check out IV profile/tracker.
gimmeliberty
07-17 05:34 PM
Congratulations to IV and all it's members. Time to celebrate!
psczd4
08-10 01:20 AM
how about applying for a tourist visa for that time period?
No comments:
Post a Comment