namu01
06-21 10:25 AM
In the form it asks the following questions:
Have you ever before applied for employment authorization from USCIS?
If yes, which USCIS office?
Date for application:
my question: I had applied to Vermont service center and later it was transferred to Texas Service center... So Should i put Vermont or Texas as the applied USCIS office?
Also, The date of application is that the day i signed the application? or the received date that i see on the approved EAD?
Thank You. input would be highly appreciated.
Have you ever before applied for employment authorization from USCIS?
If yes, which USCIS office?
Date for application:
my question: I had applied to Vermont service center and later it was transferred to Texas Service center... So Should i put Vermont or Texas as the applied USCIS office?
Also, The date of application is that the day i signed the application? or the received date that i see on the approved EAD?
Thank You. input would be highly appreciated.
wallpaper Map of North America
rkthoka
06-11 03:45 PM
Hi
My Mother in law appeared at hyderabad US consulate and IO told her that she got visa but asked her to come up with new passport, becoz some letters in her current passort has faded out.
Is this happend with any one? and what we do in this situation after getting new passport?
I mean do we need another appointment or just go with new passport and drop?
Please through some thouts.
Regards,
Krishna.
My Mother in law appeared at hyderabad US consulate and IO told her that she got visa but asked her to come up with new passport, becoz some letters in her current passort has faded out.
Is this happend with any one? and what we do in this situation after getting new passport?
I mean do we need another appointment or just go with new passport and drop?
Please through some thouts.
Regards,
Krishna.
manja
01-24 08:32 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2891
2011 Colorful North America map
sbabunle
07-23 01:12 AM
Article of Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1797415.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1797415.cms
more...
GSingh
10-13 07:27 AM
Hello folks,
I am on H1 B visa. I want to change my last name. If any H1 B visa holder has changed his/her name in US, please let me know the procedure and probelms encountered during the process.
My second question is - I have valid H1B visa stamp on my passport, If I change my name, do I have to go out of the country to get my visa stamp again ?
I am on H1 B visa. I want to change my last name. If any H1 B visa holder has changed his/her name in US, please let me know the procedure and probelms encountered during the process.
My second question is - I have valid H1B visa stamp on my passport, If I change my name, do I have to go out of the country to get my visa stamp again ?
vgnfw190
01-28 09:44 PM
Hi I am currently working as a contractor at a client from company C1
C1 applied for my H1B last year and application is still pending + also added Premium Proc. last week, Application Still Pending
At the same time company C2 applied my H1B last year and H1B approved but did not get the documents from USCIS, and applied for "Response on Approved Petition", That is still pennding(But Yes The petition is approved)
But Fortunately or Unfortunately , I got a permananent job with a new company.
I can start working with that company on OPT, and he will apply a new H1B this year.
But , Instead of that Can I get one of my H1Bs transferred?
Or is there a better way to handle this situation?
I know its a mess... Can some one suggest me how to clear this mess?
Thank You.
C1 applied for my H1B last year and application is still pending + also added Premium Proc. last week, Application Still Pending
At the same time company C2 applied my H1B last year and H1B approved but did not get the documents from USCIS, and applied for "Response on Approved Petition", That is still pennding(But Yes The petition is approved)
But Fortunately or Unfortunately , I got a permananent job with a new company.
I can start working with that company on OPT, and he will apply a new H1B this year.
But , Instead of that Can I get one of my H1Bs transferred?
Or is there a better way to handle this situation?
I know its a mess... Can some one suggest me how to clear this mess?
Thank You.
more...
cfa
09-22 05:02 PM
Mumbai visa bulletin for oct 2009 has different EB3 India dates(22nd Feb 2002).
Cut Off Dates- Consulate General of the United States Mumbai, India (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html)
Any idea whats going on?
Cut Off Dates- Consulate General of the United States Mumbai, India (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html)
Any idea whats going on?
2010 North America might be divided
roganandric
01-18 01:12 AM
I hyphenated my name while I was applying for a green card. All of my Canadian documents like my passport and my Canadian photo ids like my Ontario drivers license and health card are all in my maiden name. Can I bring my green card alone with no other documents or do I need some other government issued id? The only thing that has my current name is my green card. What do I need to get a license.
more...
jsonal101
07-19 09:33 PM
Dear All,
I am sorry for posting this message on the Immigration group because it doesnt really relate to the immigration issues. I have been a part of this group for a long time, and hence I thought of sharing this with you all. Although we all are here in the US, we all have our families and friends back home in India. This petition (forwarded to me by my friend) is a petition for safety of our people in India. Please do not consider it as a junk post.
----------
Please sign this petition. This is the least we can do as citizens of India to express ourselves against the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts.
Please also forward it to all your friends, relatives, office collegues, all your address-book contacts, egroups, alumni groups etc.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mumbai7/petition.html
I am sorry for posting this message on the Immigration group because it doesnt really relate to the immigration issues. I have been a part of this group for a long time, and hence I thought of sharing this with you all. Although we all are here in the US, we all have our families and friends back home in India. This petition (forwarded to me by my friend) is a petition for safety of our people in India. Please do not consider it as a junk post.
----------
Please sign this petition. This is the least we can do as citizens of India to express ourselves against the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts.
Please also forward it to all your friends, relatives, office collegues, all your address-book contacts, egroups, alumni groups etc.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mumbai7/petition.html
hair Map of North America
newuser
03-11 03:54 PM
No one from Vermont?
more...
chanduv23
10-04 07:07 PM
Tri State has a volunteer Mr Mukund who has dedicated his time and efforts in developing this portal
http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com
This will be the focal point for information and activities in the Tri State Area.
Tri State members, please add a link to this site to your signature.
http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com
This will be the focal point for information and activities in the Tri State Area.
Tri State members, please add a link to this site to your signature.
hot Large North America wall map
ektha123
12-24 07:57 PM
I got H1 this year. I was applied my ssn on oct 9 th. still i didn't get my ssn number. two days back ssn people called and told that "in online it is showing your EAd card. so we can give u ssn if you bring the EAD card". My question is if i give my EAD, will the h1 get cancelled. please suggest me.
more...
house states and North America
greencard_aspirant
04-01 09:47 AM
Guys,
I have another dumb question.
If you apply for COS from US for conversion from H4 to F1 and if the course study falls under TAL then will the COS procedure will take more than normal time? Have anyone experienced this before?
Thanks in advance for your help.
I have another dumb question.
If you apply for COS from US for conversion from H4 to F1 and if the course study falls under TAL then will the COS procedure will take more than normal time? Have anyone experienced this before?
Thanks in advance for your help.
tattoo North America map
raju_abc
03-15 10:37 PM
Hi,
I got H1 in 2008.
I want to that till how much time is the petition valid , if I dont go for stamping.
Also , suppose my company withdraws the petition, so now till how much duration my cap number is valid?
I got H1 in 2008.
I want to that till how much time is the petition valid , if I dont go for stamping.
Also , suppose my company withdraws the petition, so now till how much duration my cap number is valid?
more...
pictures North America
supers789
07-21 02:29 PM
yes. ur 140 is still valid. you don't need paystubs from company A, but its better to be working for company A the time you are filing 485 with them to make your case more authentic.
hope it helps!
hope it helps!
dresses Map of North America
immidude
02-28 11:28 AM
i am looking for reasonable attorney for AC21 in BayArea,CA
more...
makeup Map of North America in the
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
girlfriend This map of North America is
aadimanav
10-11 10:46 PM
* bump *:confused:
hairstyles the Map of North America
stonebrook2008
06-25 11:49 AM
hi,
My company allows me to DIY my h1b renewal for my 2nd 3-year term of H1b. My title changed to SENIOR research engineer from research engineer last year. I have the same duty. When I fill out LCA/I129, which should I choose from:
a. New employment:
b. Continuation of previously approved employment without change with the same employer
c. Change in previously approved employment
d. New concurrent employment
e. Change in employer
f. Amended petition
My wage is ok. Are there any potential problems or things I need to pay attention if I file my H1b extension with new title? or it is perfectly ok?
Thanks a lot for your attention
My company allows me to DIY my h1b renewal for my 2nd 3-year term of H1b. My title changed to SENIOR research engineer from research engineer last year. I have the same duty. When I fill out LCA/I129, which should I choose from:
a. New employment:
b. Continuation of previously approved employment without change with the same employer
c. Change in previously approved employment
d. New concurrent employment
e. Change in employer
f. Amended petition
My wage is ok. Are there any potential problems or things I need to pay attention if I file my H1b extension with new title? or it is perfectly ok?
Thanks a lot for your attention
udayak
07-20 05:11 PM
I am also looking for the same information.
Please let me know, how can a person hold
multiple H1's
Thanks
Please let me know, how can a person hold
multiple H1's
Thanks
anindya1234
07-02 06:52 AM
For item 16 what should be the CFR code: is it (c)(9) or (c)(0)(9), since there are 3 parentheses...please help!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment