jaane_bhi_do_yaaro
08-23 08:05 PM
Guys,
I am not sure if you have come across this before....
$252 USD Million Dollars!!!!!!!
Mega Millions Official Home (http://www.megamillions.com/)
Other options are
1. in 15 minutes
"How To Become a Millionaire in only 15 Minutes or less!" (Become a Millionaire Now)" (http://www.clicknmakemoney.com/)
2. In 3 Months
Possible Error Detected (http://ezinearticles.com/?How-To-Become-Rich-In-3-Months&id=251465)
3. in 10 years
How to Become a Millionaire in 10 Years | Frugal Dad (http://frugaldad.com/2008/08/19/how-to-become-a-millionaire-in-10-years/)
I am not sure if you have come across this before....
$252 USD Million Dollars!!!!!!!
Mega Millions Official Home (http://www.megamillions.com/)
Other options are
1. in 15 minutes
"How To Become a Millionaire in only 15 Minutes or less!" (Become a Millionaire Now)" (http://www.clicknmakemoney.com/)
2. In 3 Months
Possible Error Detected (http://ezinearticles.com/?How-To-Become-Rich-In-3-Months&id=251465)
3. in 10 years
How to Become a Millionaire in 10 Years | Frugal Dad (http://frugaldad.com/2008/08/19/how-to-become-a-millionaire-in-10-years/)
wallpaper Beck glenn beck daughter
rahulpaper
12-04 11:04 AM
My case is NSC>>CSC>>NSC and the received date is listed incorrectly on transfer notice....
Receipt Notice from CSC has correct received date of July 31st 2007
but
Transfer Notice from NSC has received date of Oct 12th 2007
Oct 12th seems to be the date when my case was tranferred back to NSC.
I have 3 questions for you...
1) Are other folks also observing this in their case?
2) Will NSC process my case based on Received date from (CSC notice) or their own transfer notice?
3) Whats the process to get received date fixed?
Thanks in advance.
Receipt Notice from CSC has correct received date of July 31st 2007
but
Transfer Notice from NSC has received date of Oct 12th 2007
Oct 12th seems to be the date when my case was tranferred back to NSC.
I have 3 questions for you...
1) Are other folks also observing this in their case?
2) Will NSC process my case based on Received date from (CSC notice) or their own transfer notice?
3) Whats the process to get received date fixed?
Thanks in advance.
JazzByTheBay
07-10 05:19 PM
Don't recollect seeing it here, so at the risk of getting brickbats if it's appeared here already:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/opinion/07sat1.html?ex=1341460800&en=26bbfa1cf3858a3b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
jazz
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/opinion/07sat1.html?ex=1341460800&en=26bbfa1cf3858a3b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
jazz
2011 glenn beck daughter hannah
sg2409
08-27 10:17 AM
It seems that the TSC is processing the applications in the alphabetical order of the state. The info is based on some chinese forum. I am not sure how true the info is.
Are there any one from New York/New Jersey who have already got the receipt numbers? I have filed from NY and no info yet on our I-485. BTW, I am a july 2nd filer.
Are there any one from New York/New Jersey who have already got the receipt numbers? I have filed from NY and no info yet on our I-485. BTW, I am a july 2nd filer.
more...
wewes
11-01 08:28 PM
hai
i'm new in this....
can i make object transparent in swift3D ???
thank you
i'm new in this....
can i make object transparent in swift3D ???
thank you
wandmaker
11-29 03:34 PM
sunnysunny: AP does not belong to company, it is yours - You can use AP
more...
Blog Feeds
05-21 09:50 PM
The USCIS, on May 18, 2009, once again provided an update on the number of filings for H-1B petitions for the fiscal year 2010 program.
It announced that it has received approximately 45,500 H-1B petitions counting toward the Congressionally-mandated 65,000 cap. It continues to accept petitions subject to the general cap.
I can report personally that the most recent H-1B regular cap I-129 petition that I filed was filed on May 11 and it was approved on May 15 � premium processed.
Also, the USCIS announced that is has received approximately 20,000 petitions for aliens with advanced degrees, consistent with its prior update and it reconfirmed that it is still accepting advanced degree petitions because it assumes that not all the petitions it received are approvable.
It�s beginning to look like the cap isn�t going to be reached any time soon and, who knows, maybe not at all this fiscal year.
More... (http://www.philadelphiaimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2009/05/h1b_cap_update_from_the_uscis.html)
It announced that it has received approximately 45,500 H-1B petitions counting toward the Congressionally-mandated 65,000 cap. It continues to accept petitions subject to the general cap.
I can report personally that the most recent H-1B regular cap I-129 petition that I filed was filed on May 11 and it was approved on May 15 � premium processed.
Also, the USCIS announced that is has received approximately 20,000 petitions for aliens with advanced degrees, consistent with its prior update and it reconfirmed that it is still accepting advanced degree petitions because it assumes that not all the petitions it received are approvable.
It�s beginning to look like the cap isn�t going to be reached any time soon and, who knows, maybe not at all this fiscal year.
More... (http://www.philadelphiaimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2009/05/h1b_cap_update_from_the_uscis.html)
2010 Beck glenn beck daughter
kirupa
07-25 01:35 AM
Added :beam:
more...
paritp
03-25 09:47 AM
Hello everyone, My husband whose PD is Oct 2006 EB2 got his email today...
On March 24, 2010 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
I have two questions...
1) How is it possible to get GC out of turn.........?
2) We moved to a new house n updated the address, but for some reason it was not correct. The system(also the customer service) wont let me update till 45 days have passed. Now the document will come to the wrong address? What do i do?
On March 24, 2010 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
I have two questions...
1) How is it possible to get GC out of turn.........?
2) We moved to a new house n updated the address, but for some reason it was not correct. The system(also the customer service) wont let me update till 45 days have passed. Now the document will come to the wrong address? What do i do?
hair hairstyles glenn beck daughter
thomachan72
11-16 02:33 PM
I believe finger print needs to be obtained somehow to varify the person. Hope it is not damaged too much. Why dont you try to obtain a doctor's letter stating that she had some blisters and is recovering? Usually for ladies it shouldn't be much of an issue but just as a precaution. The POE officers are usually good towards Indian ladies, particularly when they travel alone. So dont worry too much.
more...
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
hot glenn beck daughter.
Sudharani
06-28 12:45 AM
deleted.
Sudharani please update your profile and do not post such messages in future-- admin
Sudharani please update your profile and do not post such messages in future-- admin
more...
house 2011 raved Tearful Glenn Beck
GCwaitforever
11-20 10:07 AM
Check with your Attorney ... From http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/
November 15, 2006, Backlog Cases Inadvertently Withdrawn as Re-Files
It has come to the attention of the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) that due to a technical issue, a number of cases were inadvertently identified as pending PERM re-file applications and were withdrawn from the backlog. OFLC is working to rectify this situation immediately by identifying the affected cases, and reinstating them back to the appropriate processing status in proper order. This effort will be completed by November 30, 2006.
Although affected employers and their attorneys will NOT be receiving an additional notice of reinstatement, they may verify their case has been reinstated using the Public Disclosure System (PDS) starting December 1st. Since verification will be available online, employers and attorneys are requested not to contact the Backlog Elimination Centers regarding status.
November 15, 2006, Backlog Cases Inadvertently Withdrawn as Re-Files
It has come to the attention of the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) that due to a technical issue, a number of cases were inadvertently identified as pending PERM re-file applications and were withdrawn from the backlog. OFLC is working to rectify this situation immediately by identifying the affected cases, and reinstating them back to the appropriate processing status in proper order. This effort will be completed by November 30, 2006.
Although affected employers and their attorneys will NOT be receiving an additional notice of reinstatement, they may verify their case has been reinstated using the Public Disclosure System (PDS) starting December 1st. Since verification will be available online, employers and attorneys are requested not to contact the Backlog Elimination Centers regarding status.
tattoo hair ads from Glenn Beck#39;s
ivar
11-17 10:22 AM
Dear friends,
I was just checking my H1b extension status and it seems that it got approved (3 weeks time). while looking for my H1b extension status i happen to find the link below,
USCIS: National Processing Volumes and Trends (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/)
It gives the processing trends by month based on trends or volume of application processed. This dashboard is for all applications forms submitted to USCIS, you can select form type, office and chart type. Data can also be downloaded in CSV raw format for analysis.
My appologies if you guys already knew about this.
Thanks.
I was just checking my H1b extension status and it seems that it got approved (3 weeks time). while looking for my H1b extension status i happen to find the link below,
USCIS: National Processing Volumes and Trends (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/)
It gives the processing trends by month based on trends or volume of application processed. This dashboard is for all applications forms submitted to USCIS, you can select form type, office and chart type. Data can also be downloaded in CSV raw format for analysis.
My appologies if you guys already knew about this.
Thanks.
more...
pictures girlfriend Glenn Beck of Fox
ragool25
07-12 03:28 PM
Hi,
I am student on OPT extn working for an Non Profit Organisation ( non everified) , Since 2 months, I Know i should not work for non everfied company on OPT Extension, So i asked my company to do H1 asap, since workiing for non everified aslso considered as unemployed, But i am aware that in entire OPT we can unemployed for total 120 days.
My company is an Non Profit Organisation & dont have relatioship with any educational institues or research org.
Is my company eligible for H1 cap exempt, so that i can keep my start date as approval of H1? so i wont fall out of status since my H1 starts as the days of approval............or I need to wait until oct 1, 2010,
Even if i start at oct 1,2010, Will it affect my green card processing, since I worked for non everified around 6 months...........
Please provide your inputs.......
Thanks for reading my thread.
I am student on OPT extn working for an Non Profit Organisation ( non everified) , Since 2 months, I Know i should not work for non everfied company on OPT Extension, So i asked my company to do H1 asap, since workiing for non everified aslso considered as unemployed, But i am aware that in entire OPT we can unemployed for total 120 days.
My company is an Non Profit Organisation & dont have relatioship with any educational institues or research org.
Is my company eligible for H1 cap exempt, so that i can keep my start date as approval of H1? so i wont fall out of status since my H1 starts as the days of approval............or I need to wait until oct 1, 2010,
Even if i start at oct 1,2010, Will it affect my green card processing, since I worked for non everified around 6 months...........
Please provide your inputs.......
Thanks for reading my thread.
dresses hair open letter to Glenn Beck
willIWill
08-09 05:47 PM
I would like to have a list of documents/forms needed to file for derivative I-485 for spouse.
I did come across a few lists on the web, some overlap and some don't, but they do not necessarily address the full list of documents needed when Primary's I-485 is already pending and spouse is filing separately at a later time.
The derivative beneficiary is already in US on a dependent Visa, looking to do AOS instead of CP.
I would appreciate if anyone can provide a list and it'll be great if any members in a similar situation have done it themselves.
Many Thanks.
I did come across a few lists on the web, some overlap and some don't, but they do not necessarily address the full list of documents needed when Primary's I-485 is already pending and spouse is filing separately at a later time.
The derivative beneficiary is already in US on a dependent Visa, looking to do AOS instead of CP.
I would appreciate if anyone can provide a list and it'll be great if any members in a similar situation have done it themselves.
Many Thanks.
more...
makeup Glenn Beck Found to be Saner
CaveMan232
12-16 02:00 AM
I have a valid Visitor(B1/B2) visa stamp in my passport. I previously entered the country on H1B visa stamp which has already expired. Can I come back to US based on the valid Visitor(B1/B2) visa stamp?
girlfriend hot glenn beck daughter hannah
Munshi75
04-30 07:06 AM
Hi
My job requirement states MS and atleast 3 years experience. I have only 2 years and 9 months experience. what are the chances for my I 140 approval.
Thanks.
My job requirement states MS and atleast 3 years experience. I have only 2 years and 9 months experience. what are the chances for my I 140 approval.
Thanks.
hairstyles Glenn Beck
IN2US
07-25 06:05 PM
Hi
I have moved recently to San Jose. Can anyone help me where to find doctor for my medical check up for my GC.
check this link
https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=offices.type&OfficeLocator.office_type=CIV
Hope this helps
Good Luck :)
I have moved recently to San Jose. Can anyone help me where to find doctor for my medical check up for my GC.
check this link
https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=offices.type&OfficeLocator.office_type=CIV
Hope this helps
Good Luck :)
CPTproblem
03-27 05:44 PM
Hello,
I'm on OPT since Feb 14 2011. This is my first 12 months of the OPT. I recieved an OPT card from USCIS but I'm not sure what is my valid I-20 at this moment ? Is it the one saying that "OPT is requested" ? I filed a bunch of papers during OPT application but whatever reason my International officer never wants to explain anything to us students and I've to search everything on the internet. I'm applying for a driver's license test and want to know what I-20 would be needed.
Also, my employer is willing to file my H1-B. Should I tell him to file it this year or the next year ? They also signed up for everify recently.
Please suggest.
I'm on OPT since Feb 14 2011. This is my first 12 months of the OPT. I recieved an OPT card from USCIS but I'm not sure what is my valid I-20 at this moment ? Is it the one saying that "OPT is requested" ? I filed a bunch of papers during OPT application but whatever reason my International officer never wants to explain anything to us students and I've to search everything on the internet. I'm applying for a driver's license test and want to know what I-20 would be needed.
Also, my employer is willing to file my H1-B. Should I tell him to file it this year or the next year ? They also signed up for everify recently.
Please suggest.
wandmaker
11-16 12:33 AM
Automatic Revaliation is still available - but for your "H1 expired, H1 extension filing pending, no receipt notice received yet for H1 extension filing, and I-485 pending" - it is a BIG NO
No comments:
Post a Comment