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.
wallpaper angelina-jolie-leather-dress-
brick2006
06-29 10:26 AM
Anyone know of any good GC lawyers in Chicago Land area...
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
2011 Angelina Jolie
12Karan
08-06 11:55 AM
You need a visa to enter Canada that can be applied from any Canadian Consulate in the US. Indian nationals in the US without Permanent Residency/Green Card are required to have a valid visa to enter Canada irrespective of their status in the US.
more...
Blog Feeds
05-17 12:50 PM
The H-1B visa is, by far, the most sought-after temporary work visa in the United States for foreign-born, professional workers. The H-1B category requires sponsorship by a U.S. employer and is limited to specialty positions which generally require the candidates hold at least a bachelor�s degree or the equivalent in a relevant discipline. It now appears that the impact of the economy on H-1B usage will be felt for at least another year. The annual cap or quota for new H-1B visas is set by Congress at 65,000 new visas per year, not including the 20,000 H-1B visas available under...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/04/will-the-h1b-cap-be-reached-this-year-.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/04/will-the-h1b-cap-be-reached-this-year-.html)
mojo_jojo
02-24 08:26 PM
what do I have to do?
Will I be contacted by the Goverment via snail mail?
In general, how long more do I have to wait?
:confused::(
Will I be contacted by the Goverment via snail mail?
In general, how long more do I have to wait?
:confused::(
more...
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:50 AM
Since the early days of this blog, I've chastised immigration bureaucrats who use specious reasoning to treat small businesses petitioning for employment-related immigration benefits more harshly than their large-cap counterparts. The latest assault on fairness and reason is reflected in a trend affecting several categories of employment-based visas -- the H-1B (Worker in a Specialty Occupation), the L-1 nonimmigrant (Intracompany-Transferee Manager or Executive) and the EB1-3 (Multinational Manager or Executive). An example of this trend is a recently released EB1-3 decision (decided May 1, 2009) of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) denying an immigrant visa petition for a multinational...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/when-will-they-ever-learn-immigration-denial-thrives-perniciously-at-uscis.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/when-will-they-ever-learn-immigration-denial-thrives-perniciously-at-uscis.html)
2010 pictures Angelina Jolie will
amaran18
08-23 02:07 PM
HI,
How long did it take for the Senator's office to get a response from USCIS after the request to expedite ?
Thanks.
How long did it take for the Senator's office to get a response from USCIS after the request to expedite ?
Thanks.
more...
masouds
03-24 03:28 PM
So, I called USCIS this morning. The lady at the other side of the line told me that I have to reapply, and unless I have a real emergency (as defined by USCIS), I have to wait for another 6-8 months for the AP to be reissued.
Let that be a lesson to you.
Masoud
Let that be a lesson to you.
Masoud
hair This strapless leather dress
Blog Feeds
07-27 03:40 PM
The analysis of census data from both the U.S. and Mexican governments, being released Wednesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, highlights the impact of the economic downturn on Mexican immigrants, many of whom enter the United States illegally. The study found that immigrants arriving from Mexico fell by 249,000 from March 2008 to March 2009, down nearly 60 percent from the previous year. As a result, the annual inflow of immigrants is now 175,000, having steadily decreased from a peak of 653,000 in 2005, before the bursting of the housing bubble dried up construction and other low-wage jobs.
The total population of Mexican-born immigrants in the U.S. also edged lower in the past year, from 11.6 million to 11.5 million, according to the study by Pew, an independent research group. Up to 85 percent of immigrants are believed to be in the country illegally.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/mexican_immigrants_drops_to_de.html)
The total population of Mexican-born immigrants in the U.S. also edged lower in the past year, from 11.6 million to 11.5 million, according to the study by Pew, an independent research group. Up to 85 percent of immigrants are believed to be in the country illegally.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/mexican_immigrants_drops_to_de.html)
more...
walking_dude
08-15 05:49 PM
Created a poll here.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12435
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12435
hot I#39;ve never seen Angelina more
DSLStart
08-22 09:24 AM
Today I got an SLUD on my pending 485 after almost more than a year. Last one was from July, 2008 (address change). Don't understand what exactly is going on. For RFEs are there usually SLUDs before? or just an hard LUD with message change? Anyone in same boat? :confused:
more...
house a black leather dress and
Kullesh
07-22 02:50 PM
Hi, I was in India when my husband applied for my H1B in 2008. I got it picked in lottery and got the approval too. I came to US on H4. After Oct 1st 2008, we applied for Change of Status to H4 to legally complete the work permit process. In the Change of Status applicatin form, my company accidently did a mistake of mentioning that Current status=H1B, New status required=H1B. :mad: USICIS, on seeing the application, took a decision to give me H4 with new I-94. I tried calling the USCIS helpdesk, but in vain. :confused:
1) Now what should I do to start working in H1B?
2) Was I correct in ging throughChange of Status? Or could I start working with the approval copy I had?
3) Could I apply for SSN with the 2008 approval copy?
Any answers would be greatly apprrciated!. Thanks in advance........
1) Now what should I do to start working in H1B?
2) Was I correct in ging throughChange of Status? Or could I start working with the approval copy I had?
3) Could I apply for SSN with the 2008 approval copy?
Any answers would be greatly apprrciated!. Thanks in advance........
tattoo Red carpet, white dressi
pani_6
10-11 03:48 PM
When you have no GC and are on h1 legally...can you go on a cruise..I do not have stamping on the PP ..the cruise goes to some places in the caribean??..is there a immigration check while comming back??..how does this stuff work...OR is it no GC no Cruise??..
more...
pictures SMITH LEATHER DRESS
cprb2284
02-06 05:07 PM
hI ATTY I am working under an h1b visa right now as of 2011. But i had a previous petitioned by another employer way back 2006. There was an I-140 filed but it was denied and I never heard from my petitioner then. I do have the USCIS copy and case number. Can I look for another employer and atty that could reopen the case?? Please help me. Thanks
dresses Tags: Amp, Angelina Jolie,
surabhi
10-24 05:01 PM
Hi
I am July 2 Filer and got the checks cashed on October 11. The USCIS mailed receipts on October 15 and I received them on October 18th.
Because of high speed winds, my mail box got opened ( unsecured on a single family home) and much of the mail got swept away. I scouted the neighbourhood and recovered all but one receipt notice.
One doubt nagging me is if I had lost any FP notice on that day.
What has been the general wait time to get FP notices from the day the checks were cashed / receipts receieved ? I know it depends on how busy the ASCs are, so particularly interested hearing from Chicago area.
Is there anything I can do from my side to know if I indeed got a FP notice?
Thanks
I am July 2 Filer and got the checks cashed on October 11. The USCIS mailed receipts on October 15 and I received them on October 18th.
Because of high speed winds, my mail box got opened ( unsecured on a single family home) and much of the mail got swept away. I scouted the neighbourhood and recovered all but one receipt notice.
One doubt nagging me is if I had lost any FP notice on that day.
What has been the general wait time to get FP notices from the day the checks were cashed / receipts receieved ? I know it depends on how busy the ASCs are, so particularly interested hearing from Chicago area.
Is there anything I can do from my side to know if I indeed got a FP notice?
Thanks
more...
makeup Angelina Jolie: Sophisticated
GCaspirations
10-16 06:38 PM
I recently got my EAD card. I intent to continue to work full time with my current employer. I want to work part time with another employer. My H1 is stamped and valid untill end of 2008.
If I use my EAD card for part-time job, does my H1 get invalid?
If yes, do I need to inform my fulltime employer about change in status?
If no, can I travel outside USA with the H1 visa for reentry?
Please help.
If I use my EAD card for part-time job, does my H1 get invalid?
If yes, do I need to inform my fulltime employer about change in status?
If no, can I travel outside USA with the H1 visa for reentry?
Please help.
girlfriend Angelina Jolie with Black
solaris27
01-31 10:04 AM
i got in 2-3 days
hairstyles Leather Dress on Angelina
ab53579
06-18 10:42 PM
thanks for your reply, where I shuld put concurnt i-140 and i-485, there is just a chck mark and there is n clumn where I can write cncurent i-140 and i-485,
Thanks,
Jan
Thanks,
Jan
coolfun
07-14 03:46 PM
Hi All,
Today I received an email from CRIS saying that they have sent me an RFE on my AP application. My wife's AP was approved last week, so it really confuses me about what this could be about? Can anyone shed more light on "probable" causes of I-131 RFE?
I have another question - my passport is expiring in November 2007. Could that be the cause of the AP RFE? I could get that renewed from Indian embassy in 10 days, so its not a problem. But, has anyone heard about cases where expiring passport causes RFEs?
Thanks for your help.
Today I received an email from CRIS saying that they have sent me an RFE on my AP application. My wife's AP was approved last week, so it really confuses me about what this could be about? Can anyone shed more light on "probable" causes of I-131 RFE?
I have another question - my passport is expiring in November 2007. Could that be the cause of the AP RFE? I could get that renewed from Indian embassy in 10 days, so its not a problem. But, has anyone heard about cases where expiring passport causes RFEs?
Thanks for your help.
saibaba
12-10 10:21 PM
pls see non immigrant visa section for PIMS-H1 info..
No comments:
Post a Comment