Digitalosophy
03-10 12:10 PM
FYI.... Vash has helped me with a ton of php/mySQL, which i am very thankful for. He really knows his stuff, so yall can take my word as well. ;)
wallpaper couple kissing. kissing couple
natrajs
09-05 03:19 PM
Good Find
Student with no hopes
10-20 11:18 AM
The dream of multiple-biometric IDs may become a reality in India (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/352077/Multiple_Biometric_IDs_Dream_or_Reality_)
2011 couples kissing. couple
kirupa
07-25 01:34 AM
Added :)
more...
Blog Feeds
07-02 04:30 PM
On June 26, 2009, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that the current edition of the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 (Rev. 02/02/09) will continue to be valid for use beyond June 30, 2009. USCIS has requested that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the continued use of the current version of Form I-9. Once the extension request is approved, USCIS will update Form I-9. At that time, employers will be able to use either the Form I-9 with the new revision date or the Form I-9 with the 02/02/09 revision date.
Read more here.. (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=31b3ab0a43b5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/06/update_on_new_i9_form.html)
Read more here.. (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=31b3ab0a43b5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/06/update_on_new_i9_form.html)
waitingGC
03-16 12:17 PM
I will change my employer in April and transfer my H1 with my wife's H4. My wife has found some company which would sponsor her H1B. I am on EB2+485 pending. My wife is on H4(we haven't filed her 485 due to retrogression). I am very confused now. Please help me!
1. My wife's company would apply H1B on April the 1st. My new employer will transfer our H1&H4 after that. Will we have any problem here?
2. My new employer would sponsor me EB1. I have EB2+485 pending. If I apply for EB1 140+485, what will happen my old 485?
3. I am thinking to apply 140 first and if 140 gets approved, I will file 485. I am not sure if I have any risk here. Is there any chance that my EB1 485 gets denied? Do my EB2 485 and EB1 485 have the same chances to get denied?
Thank you!
1. My wife's company would apply H1B on April the 1st. My new employer will transfer our H1&H4 after that. Will we have any problem here?
2. My new employer would sponsor me EB1. I have EB2+485 pending. If I apply for EB1 140+485, what will happen my old 485?
3. I am thinking to apply 140 first and if 140 gets approved, I will file 485. I am not sure if I have any risk here. Is there any chance that my EB1 485 gets denied? Do my EB2 485 and EB1 485 have the same chances to get denied?
Thank you!
more...
pomosideshow
03-22 03:38 PM
From My webcomic (http://www.postmodernsideshow.com/category/comics/) [postmodernsideshow.com]
Drawn by hand on a wacom enabled laptop in ps and then vectorized in ai.
Ignore the mysterious thumb pinky on my right hand.
I've lost weight since the drawing, but I still draw myself with the paunch.
http://www.postmodernsideshow.com/comics/2008-05-26-gc0097-baby-food-shame.png
Drawn by hand on a wacom enabled laptop in ps and then vectorized in ai.
Ignore the mysterious thumb pinky on my right hand.
I've lost weight since the drawing, but I still draw myself with the paunch.
http://www.postmodernsideshow.com/comics/2008-05-26-gc0097-baby-food-shame.png
2010 FM Radios Kissing couple
summersky
04-08 05:19 PM
Hi,
I received an RFE for proof of maintaining legal US residence in the form of I-797 forms of H1b extension or EADs etc. What was surprising is that we had not filed a medical exam with the original 485 application as we couldnt get an appointment in time before the retrogression and thus have been waiting for an RFE for the same. Yet they have not asked for it.
Can we (in addition to providing the required docs for the RFE), send the medical exam sealed envelope (obtained later but within the past year) even though it wasnt requested yet? The USCIS provided envelope is of course too small to put everything into but we plan to attach it to the couriered docs. Does this sound reasonable?
thanks
I received an RFE for proof of maintaining legal US residence in the form of I-797 forms of H1b extension or EADs etc. What was surprising is that we had not filed a medical exam with the original 485 application as we couldnt get an appointment in time before the retrogression and thus have been waiting for an RFE for the same. Yet they have not asked for it.
Can we (in addition to providing the required docs for the RFE), send the medical exam sealed envelope (obtained later but within the past year) even though it wasnt requested yet? The USCIS provided envelope is of course too small to put everything into but we plan to attach it to the couriered docs. Does this sound reasonable?
thanks
more...
Blog Feeds
06-13 05:40 PM
I've heard from police before who believe that turning local law enforcement officers into immigration enforcement officers discourages people from reporting crimes and distracts the police from doing their jobs. They also know that illegally present immigrants are targets for criminals and this drives up the crime rate for everyone as crime is rarely contained in one community. The chiefs all called on Congress to pass immigration reform. This week, leading police officers from around the US held a press conference held a press conference in Washington that included Chief of Police Art Acevedo of Austin, TX Chief of Police...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/top-cops-immigration-reform-will-promote-law-and-order.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/top-cops-immigration-reform-will-promote-law-and-order.html)
hair +1
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
02-12 06:41 PM
Current situation :
Labor approved(eb3 with pd of July 03),
I140 in process,
In my seventh year of H1b on a one year extension expiring in August.
Please advise if I can change employers now and still get a new H1 though I am in my seventh year ?
Thanks
Labor approved(eb3 with pd of July 03),
I140 in process,
In my seventh year of H1b on a one year extension expiring in August.
Please advise if I can change employers now and still get a new H1 though I am in my seventh year ?
Thanks
more...
greencard_fever
02-05 03:18 PM
I had the soft LUD on my I129 which was approved in Nov 2007.
hot of people kissing. couple
raj12220
01-28 08:39 PM
1)
I am working on EAD for a company A (I have approved H1 with company B). i want to maintain both the statuses, can i do that by running the paycheck with H1 company?
2)
my fiancee is on H1 status and i want to change her status from H1 to H4 (H1 getting expired). will it be ok as long as i maiting H1 status?
Thanks
I am working on EAD for a company A (I have approved H1 with company B). i want to maintain both the statuses, can i do that by running the paycheck with H1 company?
2)
my fiancee is on H1 status and i want to change her status from H1 to H4 (H1 getting expired). will it be ok as long as i maiting H1 status?
Thanks
more...
house of Kissing Couple by Cathy
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
tattoo half naked kissing couple
nature
07-13 05:12 PM
I am sure with this whole fiasco something good will turn up. It might take long but it will be for betterment of us all. I am proud to be an IV member and fully commend their ongoing efforts.
Cocentrate on brighter side guys.
Cocentrate on brighter side guys.
more...
pictures Hot Kiss Wallpapers For
copsmart
06-07 10:17 PM
Here are my details.....
Paper filed: 05-19-2010
Received date: 05-20-2010
Notice date:06-01-2010
No updates yet.
Paper filed: 05-19-2010
Received date: 05-20-2010
Notice date:06-01-2010
No updates yet.
dresses Mina as a kissing couple
Gravitation
01-21 07:45 AM
My friend H1b visa and status has expired. How can he stay the US? Please help he is in dire need.
Need more details.
When did he first come here on h1b?
Does he have a job?
Has GC been applied for?
Post as many details as possible.
Need more details.
When did he first come here on h1b?
Does he have a job?
Has GC been applied for?
Post as many details as possible.
more...
makeup Louvre - Kissing Couple
mallu
07-24 04:12 PM
If we lose our job after having the I-485 pending for more than 8 months, I-140 approved, how much time do we have to find another job?
Do we have to immediately withdraw the petition after losing/quiting a job?
Thanks!
The advice i got is that you should be in a new job ( and notified USCIS about usage of AC21 ) before,
1. The I-485 is approved
2. Any RFE directed to the old employer
I don't think one needs to withdraw application.
Do we have to immediately withdraw the petition after losing/quiting a job?
Thanks!
The advice i got is that you should be in a new job ( and notified USCIS about usage of AC21 ) before,
1. The I-485 is approved
2. Any RFE directed to the old employer
I don't think one needs to withdraw application.
girlfriend and Woman Couple Kissing
Blog Feeds
11-02 08:50 AM
Can a Saturday or a Sunday be a "business day"? It depends on who you ask. The U.S. Department of Labor says yes, while the Department of Homeland Security thinks otherwise. What's an employer to do? On October 12, the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) issued a decision "In the Matter of Il Cortile Restaurant". This case involves a PERM application for a chef, and has been bouncing around in the Labor Department (DOL) for three years. In May 2007, the employer posted a Notice of Filing (NOF) of a PERM application for ten consecutive days. The Certifying...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/10/uscis-should-follow-balca-on-posting-requirement.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/10/uscis-should-follow-balca-on-posting-requirement.html)
hairstyles Couples :: kissing couple
Abdul Lateef
04-18 05:23 PM
Hi, My case is upgraded to Premium on March 5, 2011 and the status not yet changed. Still showing as RFE.
What is INFOPASS? can you explain.
What is INFOPASS? can you explain.
kumartexas
11-07 07:54 PM
Scenario
L1 & I94 valid till late 2011 with comp A
new H1 with comp B approved effective November valid for another 2-3 years
Can some one still continue working on L1 or one must have to surrender L1 and need to switch over to H1.
What is the valid time period he can continue on L1 with comp A.
L1 & I94 valid till late 2011 with comp A
new H1 with comp B approved effective November valid for another 2-3 years
Can some one still continue working on L1 or one must have to surrender L1 and need to switch over to H1.
What is the valid time period he can continue on L1 with comp A.
coolfun
04-01 12:50 AM
I know this is really stupid but I can't seem to find the answer to this one:
- I am doing a paper filing of 1040. Do I need to send 1040 as a two sided print out or single sided printouts?
The CA 540 specifically says single sided printouts but am not able to find this information for 1040.
Thanks a ton for your help.
- I am doing a paper filing of 1040. Do I need to send 1040 as a two sided print out or single sided printouts?
The CA 540 specifically says single sided printouts but am not able to find this information for 1040.
Thanks a ton for your help.
No comments:
Post a Comment