raju_abc
12-08 10:56 PM
Hi,
I wanted to know that suppose i withdraw my H1 ,
then does it means that my H1 is gone?
And if i want to have H1 again if future (say next year) , will i have to go through the lottery again?
I wanted to know that suppose i withdraw my H1 ,
then does it means that my H1 is gone?
And if i want to have H1 again if future (say next year) , will i have to go through the lottery again?
wallpaper Office+hairstyles+for+long
Macaca
03-11 06:42 PM
Some paras from Securing Iraq Votes, One at a Time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031001300.html) -- House Democratic Leaders Methodically Build Support for War Plan
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, March 11, 2007
Rep. Jerry Nadler was the only lawmaker at a meeting of all House Democrats on Thursday to stand up and declare that he could not support a compromise plan to fund the Iraq war with a timeline to end the conflict. So some party leaders had written him off even as he joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a private meeting.
In the confines of the speaker's suite, Nadler (N.Y.) could be specific. He sought assurances from Pelosi (Calif.) that President Bush would be compelled to withdraw all troops from combat by August 2008, as the legislation proposed. He wanted to know: "What is the legal compulsion to follow this timeline?"
A Pelosi aide disappeared from the meeting for a few minutes and returned with a few lines of legislative text offering what Nadler wanted to hear: Once troops are out of Iraq, no money would be available to put them back in, outside the narrow exceptions of targeted counterterrorism operations, embassy protection and efforts to train Iraqis.
"You know," Nadler said after a pause, "I think that's okay."
Nadler's conversion was a sign of the member-by-member, slow but deliberate headway Democratic leaders say they are making in their efforts to cobble together the 218 supporters they need to pass one of the most consequential pieces of defense legislation in decades, a $105 billion war-funding bill that would impose strict standards of rest and readiness for the military, establish clear benchmarks for the government of Iraq and set a timeline to end U.S. involvement in the war.
Through closed-door meetings, pep rallies, private phone conversations and horse trading, Democratic leaders are moving outward from the 180 solid votes in the party's political center to win the votes on the party's left and right that will be needed to pass the bill later this month.
The cajoling will continue tomorrow as lawmakers return to Washington and the legislation is readied for markup later in the week. But there are roadblocks: Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) said some conservatives are withholding their support until the language McDermott wanted is removed.
As Democratic leaders balance those demands, the calculus is fairly straightforward, said one conservative Democrat involved in the process. Leaders are counting on winning all but a dozen of the 43 conservative Blue Dog Democrats and all but a dozen of the 75 or so members of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus. Then, Democratic leaders are hoping, enough Republicans will break ranks to put them over the top.
By last week's end, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said, they had secured about 200 votes.
But the last 18 votes will not be easy. That point was brought home Thursday morning, during the closed-door meeting in which the legislation was detailed for Democratic members. As Pelosi gave her pitch, Reps. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Lloyd Doggett (Tex.) and Nadler stood up to leave for a news conference of their own. After an uncomfortable pause, Pelosi growled that she wished Democrats would be courteous enough to hear her out before talking to the media. Nadler sat down. The rest walked out.
Democratic aides concede that some party members, including Woolsey, Lee and Doggett, are all but lost. But they are not giving up.
"There's nothing guaranteed in life, but I feel very good," Emanuel said.
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, March 11, 2007
Rep. Jerry Nadler was the only lawmaker at a meeting of all House Democrats on Thursday to stand up and declare that he could not support a compromise plan to fund the Iraq war with a timeline to end the conflict. So some party leaders had written him off even as he joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a private meeting.
In the confines of the speaker's suite, Nadler (N.Y.) could be specific. He sought assurances from Pelosi (Calif.) that President Bush would be compelled to withdraw all troops from combat by August 2008, as the legislation proposed. He wanted to know: "What is the legal compulsion to follow this timeline?"
A Pelosi aide disappeared from the meeting for a few minutes and returned with a few lines of legislative text offering what Nadler wanted to hear: Once troops are out of Iraq, no money would be available to put them back in, outside the narrow exceptions of targeted counterterrorism operations, embassy protection and efforts to train Iraqis.
"You know," Nadler said after a pause, "I think that's okay."
Nadler's conversion was a sign of the member-by-member, slow but deliberate headway Democratic leaders say they are making in their efforts to cobble together the 218 supporters they need to pass one of the most consequential pieces of defense legislation in decades, a $105 billion war-funding bill that would impose strict standards of rest and readiness for the military, establish clear benchmarks for the government of Iraq and set a timeline to end U.S. involvement in the war.
Through closed-door meetings, pep rallies, private phone conversations and horse trading, Democratic leaders are moving outward from the 180 solid votes in the party's political center to win the votes on the party's left and right that will be needed to pass the bill later this month.
The cajoling will continue tomorrow as lawmakers return to Washington and the legislation is readied for markup later in the week. But there are roadblocks: Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) said some conservatives are withholding their support until the language McDermott wanted is removed.
As Democratic leaders balance those demands, the calculus is fairly straightforward, said one conservative Democrat involved in the process. Leaders are counting on winning all but a dozen of the 43 conservative Blue Dog Democrats and all but a dozen of the 75 or so members of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus. Then, Democratic leaders are hoping, enough Republicans will break ranks to put them over the top.
By last week's end, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said, they had secured about 200 votes.
But the last 18 votes will not be easy. That point was brought home Thursday morning, during the closed-door meeting in which the legislation was detailed for Democratic members. As Pelosi gave her pitch, Reps. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Lloyd Doggett (Tex.) and Nadler stood up to leave for a news conference of their own. After an uncomfortable pause, Pelosi growled that she wished Democrats would be courteous enough to hear her out before talking to the media. Nadler sat down. The rest walked out.
Democratic aides concede that some party members, including Woolsey, Lee and Doggett, are all but lost. But they are not giving up.
"There's nothing guaranteed in life, but I feel very good," Emanuel said.
Macaca
10-30 08:54 PM
Honey, They Shrunk the Congress (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/opinion/30tues4.html) By ADAM COHEN | New York Times, October 30, 2007
President Bush�s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, was asked an important question about Congress�s power at his confirmation hearing. If witnesses claim executive privilege and refuse to respond to Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal � as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have done � and Congress holds them in contempt, would his Justice Department refer the matter to a grand jury for criminal prosecution, as federal law requires?
Mr. Mukasey suggested the answer would be no. That was hardly his only slap-down of Congress. He made the startling claim that a president can defy laws if he or she is acting within the authority �to defend the country.� That is a mighty large exception to the rule that Congress�s laws are supreme.
The founders wanted the �people�s branch� to be strong, but the Bush administration has usurped a frightening number of Congress�s powers � with very little resistance. The question is whether members of Congress of both parties will do anything about it.
Congress is often described as one of three coequal branches, but that is not entirely true. As Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor, observed in �America�s Constitution: a Biography,� Article I actually makes Congress �first among equals, with wide power to structure the second-mentioned executive and third-mentioned judicial branches.�
Article I, which describes Congress�s powers, is the Constitution�s first, longest and most generously worded article. It gives Congress a wide array of specific powers, but also broad authority to pass laws that bring to life �all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.�
It would be hard to recognize that powerful Congress today. In part, that is because Congress has been unwilling or unable to enact laws on the most important issues facing the nation � Iraq, immigration reform, health care.
Just as troubling, though, is how it has allowed its institutional power to erode. President Bush has regularly issued signing statements � including on critical issues like the ban on torture � that assert his right to ignore new laws at the same time as he signs them. These signing statements are not just talk. A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office states that in nearly one-third of the cases it looked at, after President Bush issued a signing statement objecting to a provision of a new law, his administration did not implement it as written.
The Senate has routinely confirmed judicial nominees who make no secret of their belief that the president�s power should be sweeping, and Congress�s sharply cut back.
The Senate confirmed Jeffrey Sutton to a federal appeals court judgeship even though Patrick Leahy, now the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, observed that as a lawyer Mr. Sutton �aggressively sought out cases to limit the power of Congress to enact laws protecting individual rights.� It confirmed Janice Rogers Brown to the powerful United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit even though she had suggested that much of the legislation passed during the New Deal � including the Social Security Act � was unconstitutional.
There are things Congress can do. It can start by speaking out about the importance of Congressional power the way the administration has talked about deferring to the commander in chief. Congress should pass laws that support its own power � like a bipartisan one that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, has introduced to nullify the impact of signing statements.
The Senate should refuse to confirm nominees who do not take Congressional power seriously. And Congress should make clear that if the executive branch will not enforce its subpoenas, it will use its own �inherent contempt� powers to do so.
Right now, standing up for Congress may appeal more to Democrats than Republicans. The issue of reining in presidential power is beginning to gain traction among conservatives, however, as they contemplate the possibility of a Democrat � particularly Hillary Clinton � as president.
Defending Congressional authority should not be a partisan issue. The founders wanted a strong Congress because they understood the importance of ensuring that the most democratic branch have a strong say in how the nation is run.
President Bush�s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, was asked an important question about Congress�s power at his confirmation hearing. If witnesses claim executive privilege and refuse to respond to Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal � as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have done � and Congress holds them in contempt, would his Justice Department refer the matter to a grand jury for criminal prosecution, as federal law requires?
Mr. Mukasey suggested the answer would be no. That was hardly his only slap-down of Congress. He made the startling claim that a president can defy laws if he or she is acting within the authority �to defend the country.� That is a mighty large exception to the rule that Congress�s laws are supreme.
The founders wanted the �people�s branch� to be strong, but the Bush administration has usurped a frightening number of Congress�s powers � with very little resistance. The question is whether members of Congress of both parties will do anything about it.
Congress is often described as one of three coequal branches, but that is not entirely true. As Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor, observed in �America�s Constitution: a Biography,� Article I actually makes Congress �first among equals, with wide power to structure the second-mentioned executive and third-mentioned judicial branches.�
Article I, which describes Congress�s powers, is the Constitution�s first, longest and most generously worded article. It gives Congress a wide array of specific powers, but also broad authority to pass laws that bring to life �all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.�
It would be hard to recognize that powerful Congress today. In part, that is because Congress has been unwilling or unable to enact laws on the most important issues facing the nation � Iraq, immigration reform, health care.
Just as troubling, though, is how it has allowed its institutional power to erode. President Bush has regularly issued signing statements � including on critical issues like the ban on torture � that assert his right to ignore new laws at the same time as he signs them. These signing statements are not just talk. A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office states that in nearly one-third of the cases it looked at, after President Bush issued a signing statement objecting to a provision of a new law, his administration did not implement it as written.
The Senate has routinely confirmed judicial nominees who make no secret of their belief that the president�s power should be sweeping, and Congress�s sharply cut back.
The Senate confirmed Jeffrey Sutton to a federal appeals court judgeship even though Patrick Leahy, now the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, observed that as a lawyer Mr. Sutton �aggressively sought out cases to limit the power of Congress to enact laws protecting individual rights.� It confirmed Janice Rogers Brown to the powerful United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit even though she had suggested that much of the legislation passed during the New Deal � including the Social Security Act � was unconstitutional.
There are things Congress can do. It can start by speaking out about the importance of Congressional power the way the administration has talked about deferring to the commander in chief. Congress should pass laws that support its own power � like a bipartisan one that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, has introduced to nullify the impact of signing statements.
The Senate should refuse to confirm nominees who do not take Congressional power seriously. And Congress should make clear that if the executive branch will not enforce its subpoenas, it will use its own �inherent contempt� powers to do so.
Right now, standing up for Congress may appeal more to Democrats than Republicans. The issue of reining in presidential power is beginning to gain traction among conservatives, however, as they contemplate the possibility of a Democrat � particularly Hillary Clinton � as president.
Defending Congressional authority should not be a partisan issue. The founders wanted a strong Congress because they understood the importance of ensuring that the most democratic branch have a strong say in how the nation is run.
2011 hairstyles for office.
Openarms
04-27 04:13 PM
We should also ask IV to fight against staying same or similar job position when using EAD or AC21. In a way that is totally against American competitive spirit and reward the bright spirit. Think about this way when some body is capable of climbing the ladder and able to provide great service to the company why can not he has been given promotion in the same field?? remember there is always somebody out there to abuse the system.... that is where the regulation should come into picture.
more...
same_old_guy
10-10 02:48 AM
Visa Bulletin November 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4576.html)
All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIP-PINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01APR05 22JAN05 C C
3rd 01JUN02 01JUN02 22APR01 01JUN02 01JUN02
Other Workers 01JUN01 01JUN01 22APR01 01JUN01 01JUN01
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers U U U U U
5th C C C C C
Targeted Employ-ment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs U U U U U
All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIP-PINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01APR05 22JAN05 C C
3rd 01JUN02 01JUN02 22APR01 01JUN02 01JUN02
Other Workers 01JUN01 01JUN01 22APR01 01JUN01 01JUN01
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers U U U U U
5th C C C C C
Targeted Employ-ment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs U U U U U
asali
05-21 02:37 PM
Hi Friends,
I have approved I-140 (PD Sep,2007) but recently my H1 extension was denied so had to come on H4, so now what will happen to my GC, do I have to start from scratch OR my I-140 is still valid once I come back on H1 (with different employer).
Please respond
I have approved I-140 (PD Sep,2007) but recently my H1 extension was denied so had to come on H4, so now what will happen to my GC, do I have to start from scratch OR my I-140 is still valid once I come back on H1 (with different employer).
Please respond
more...
jahnavi
06-20 02:15 PM
Hi,
I just want to know how long it will take to receive the cards after approval because i am planning to move ..
Is it really take 60 Days ?
What is ADIT processing ?
On June 20, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Thanks
Mahesh
I just want to know how long it will take to receive the cards after approval because i am planning to move ..
Is it really take 60 Days ?
What is ADIT processing ?
On June 20, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Thanks
Mahesh
2010 2011 Latest Hairstyle Fashion hairstyles for office. hairstyles for office
sanz
02-25 11:20 AM
how true is that .. whenevr spillover happens it happens
more...
Comiccmadd
07-23 09:19 AM
i would ! i can imagine my granny's reaction:D
hair Mens Office Hairstyles - Page
eastindia
04-26 02:59 PM
What is stopping you from leaving this job?
There is something called AC21 that protects you like blanket on a baby.
There is something called AC21 that protects you like blanket on a baby.
more...
NIW_Engineer
03-23 02:03 PM
I think if she didn't indicate that she intended to do CP in her I-140, but rather indicated she intended to do AOS in the US, then it will be a pain in the neck to switch to CP
hot clip in office hairstyles keep your hair Office+hairstyles+for+long+hair
SkilledWorker4GC
06-14 04:40 PM
Hi,
I have a question regarding the I765 form. In the I 765 form it says Have you ever before applied for EAD to USCIS. I did my MS from US University and got OPT also known as EAD and worked on it for an year. Now my question is do i check yes or no? Do i consider that as EAD or just OPT.
I have a question regarding the I765 form. In the I 765 form it says Have you ever before applied for EAD to USCIS. I did my MS from US University and got OPT also known as EAD and worked on it for an year. Now my question is do i check yes or no? Do i consider that as EAD or just OPT.
more...
house hairstyles for office.
Blog Feeds
09-02 05:30 PM
Governor Charlie Cristhas named his aide George LeMieux to fill the seat of Senator Mel Martinez until next year's midterm elections when Crist will run for the seat. America's Voice warns that the new Senator will ignore immigration to his own peril.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/floridas-new-senator-a-blank-slate-on-immigration.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/floridas-new-senator-a-blank-slate-on-immigration.html)
tattoo Office+hairstyles+for+
subikarthik
09-16 02:43 PM
Hi,I have filed H1B during August 09 ..my priority dates became current in Sep 09 and I have filed for AOS -485 /EAD ..Should I cancel my H1B or will it automatically get canceled once I receive my EAD ?Please suggest.
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
pictures All Beauty Hairstyles: Office
uumapathi
08-06 12:06 PM
My company uses Maiona and Maiona PC in Boston, they are great.
dresses easy prom hairstyle. casual
pappu
11-15 09:52 PM
IV admins, Alaska's state code is AK, not AL. :)
I'm in Anchorage, AK. Skiing, fishing, boating, hiking, etc. -- you name it, let's do it. :)
Thanks for poiintiing this out. Pls try to find others like you stuck in retrogression from yoiur state/company. You can build a state chapter in your state and help organize activities.
I'm in Anchorage, AK. Skiing, fishing, boating, hiking, etc. -- you name it, let's do it. :)
Thanks for poiintiing this out. Pls try to find others like you stuck in retrogression from yoiur state/company. You can build a state chapter in your state and help organize activities.
more...
makeup Mens+office+hairstyles
mjdup
05-26 09:11 PM
- recently obtained a duplicate passport for my stolen passport, unfortunately also lost I-94 when received in Dec.08.
- Can I use the I-94 attached in the bottom of the I797? I won't have time to submit I102 and wait for replacement I-94.
- I've a trip coming very soon to Germany, last year had obtained the H1b stamping at US consulate in Germany, will it be ok if I apply for restamping at the same consulate because of time factor I'm not able to Canada or Mexico or India.
Any help and advise will be much appreciated. thanks !
- Can I use the I-94 attached in the bottom of the I797? I won't have time to submit I102 and wait for replacement I-94.
- I've a trip coming very soon to Germany, last year had obtained the H1b stamping at US consulate in Germany, will it be ok if I apply for restamping at the same consulate because of time factor I'm not able to Canada or Mexico or India.
Any help and advise will be much appreciated. thanks !
girlfriend dresses Filed under: Hairstyle Author: hairstyles for office. hairstyles for
ncmahesh
05-02 03:23 PM
My friends h1b got rejected 2years back , he once again applied for new one in this fin year from diffrent company , does old petion will effect the new one, as he not shown th eold one while filing the new one
hairstyles hairstyles
pamposh
09-27 09:50 PM
application sent to vermont on july 3rd though not 2nd.
no receipt yet, no money orders cashed
thanks
no receipt yet, no money orders cashed
thanks
cooldesi
04-02 07:50 PM
I dont think they'll have issues. It takes some time to gice notice and wrap up work
precious123
03-22 06:20 PM
Dear Attorney,
Below are my details:
Current work status : H1B
Applied for I-485 , July'07 filer, priority date: jun EB3 category
My husband details:
Current work status : H1B
Applied for I-485 , July'07 filer, priority date: Feb EB3 category
We both have separate EADs and H1B visas and are independent of each other currently.
Because my priority date is 2006 and my husband's is in 2005, there is more possibility that he may get GC before my PD becomes current.
When my husband's priority date becomes current, he wants to file it for me again so i would get GC along with him.
I am now considering to look out for jobs and use my EAD card with new employer.
Can I make my EAD active ? Will it cause any problems when my husband's priority date becomes current and when we file my application along with his ?
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Below are my details:
Current work status : H1B
Applied for I-485 , July'07 filer, priority date: jun EB3 category
My husband details:
Current work status : H1B
Applied for I-485 , July'07 filer, priority date: Feb EB3 category
We both have separate EADs and H1B visas and are independent of each other currently.
Because my priority date is 2006 and my husband's is in 2005, there is more possibility that he may get GC before my PD becomes current.
When my husband's priority date becomes current, he wants to file it for me again so i would get GC along with him.
I am now considering to look out for jobs and use my EAD card with new employer.
Can I make my EAD active ? Will it cause any problems when my husband's priority date becomes current and when we file my application along with his ?
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire