SlowRoasted
06-05 04:25 PM
nice, good job
wallpaper Cameron Diaz Films #39;Bad
patiently_waiting
01-15 03:24 PM
Questions & Answers: USCIS Issues Guidance Memorandum on Establishing the "Employee-Employer Relationship" in H-1B Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3d015869c9326210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
bishwas123
04-24 08:47 PM
Hello everyone,
I have heard that if you cancel your first LC and apply for a Second one you can still use the advertisements and all from the first one if you fall withing that "6 month" period. My question is -
Is it 6 month from the first day that the advertisement was published or is it 6 month from the day your first LC was approved? :confused:
Experts please shed some light on this.
Thanks in advance
I have heard that if you cancel your first LC and apply for a Second one you can still use the advertisements and all from the first one if you fall withing that "6 month" period. My question is -
Is it 6 month from the first day that the advertisement was published or is it 6 month from the day your first LC was approved? :confused:
Experts please shed some light on this.
Thanks in advance
2011 Cameron Diaz Wearing Booty
Roger Binny
03-16 01:06 PM
By the ways, there is also a possibility to request retaining old priority date, without filing a second 485.
I assume this is just a request letter from attorney or any representative, if they didn't act on it follow-up with a Service Request.
I assume this is just a request letter from attorney or any representative, if they didn't act on it follow-up with a Service Request.
more...
jatinr
09-21 05:44 PM
I had applied on July 19th to Nebraska. My I-140 was approved from TX.
Today I received transfer notice WAC...., mentioning that they have transferred my case to TX Service center.
The receipt date is of Sep 14th, Notice date of Sep 17th'2007.
Does it mean I lost the original filing receipt date of July 20th'2007.
Today I received transfer notice WAC...., mentioning that they have transferred my case to TX Service center.
The receipt date is of Sep 14th, Notice date of Sep 17th'2007.
Does it mean I lost the original filing receipt date of July 20th'2007.
Blog Feeds
03-05 02:00 PM
The New York Times' Nina Bernstein reports on gross abuses of immigrants in the detention system and how the Administration would like to make reforms to better protect detained individuals. But just as it is trying to clean up the mess, the White House is trying to wash its hands of responsibility in two of the worst cases.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/white-house-wants-to-take-responsibility-for-detention-abuses-but-not-too-much.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/white-house-wants-to-take-responsibility-for-detention-abuses-but-not-too-much.html)
more...
kirupa
05-27 03:29 PM
Post a direct link to the file or e-mail it to kirupa_at_kirupa.com ;)
2010 cameron diaz bad teacher
mike007
05-14 07:40 PM
Hey there,
I have currently applied for H1B visa under Masters Quota (Regular Processing). And its still under process but I want to know if by any chance I get rejected this year, how much are the chances of being approved when I apply next year. Will it make a negative impact when I apply next year? I am currently on OPT and my course is under STEM. Also let me know if there are any other options.
Thanks
I have currently applied for H1B visa under Masters Quota (Regular Processing). And its still under process but I want to know if by any chance I get rejected this year, how much are the chances of being approved when I apply next year. Will it make a negative impact when I apply next year? I am currently on OPT and my course is under STEM. Also let me know if there are any other options.
Thanks
more...
akhilmahajan
07-21 11:23 AM
is it only for physicians?
my wife is a dentist.
my wife is a dentist.
hair Cameron Diaz Bad Teacher Babe
connect0123
04-05 01:00 AM
Nice Design!
Keep it up.
U can also take more information by visit our site
Keep it up.
U can also take more information by visit our site
more...
maash10
08-11 11:33 AM
Hello Friends
My husband was an employee of a desi company and they had withheld part of his salary, he filed a complaint at the DOL and got the pending money back.. that was 4 years back.. now he is trying to change his job and the new employer wants to do his background check..
what will show up in his background check? will the case against his employer affect him? we are really worried about this.
Thanks in advance
My husband was an employee of a desi company and they had withheld part of his salary, he filed a complaint at the DOL and got the pending money back.. that was 4 years back.. now he is trying to change his job and the new employer wants to do his background check..
what will show up in his background check? will the case against his employer affect him? we are really worried about this.
Thanks in advance
hot Cameron Diaz poses with a sign
Macaca
08-05 08:12 AM
A Bad Deal Gets Worse (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/05sun2.html) August 5, 2007
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
more...
house cameron diaz bad teacher
jetflyer
05-07 08:23 AM
Friends,
I am starting this thread for the people who are Greencard Holders and not married. Please share some thoughts for bringing their spouse here.
IV can help in this matter.
If all visa holders and citizens can bring their spouse instantly then why GC holder have to wait for many years after getting GC after many years.
Thanks
Jet
I am starting this thread for the people who are Greencard Holders and not married. Please share some thoughts for bringing their spouse here.
IV can help in this matter.
If all visa holders and citizens can bring their spouse instantly then why GC holder have to wait for many years after getting GC after many years.
Thanks
Jet
tattoo Bad. Teacher.
omeya
08-18 09:10 AM
Thanks txh1b.
more...
pictures Who knew Cameron Diaz was such
![cameron diaz bad teacher pictures. [pics] » Cameron Diaz bad](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uScpHIYtC3tXzZn35DFz3m830XSnQZjjb1ochFgGQf3nD6izrbuCj_Q__pVjl04DPF3VhtcP6PngYOZMk5JYmt9ywtFx3K_Q2ePh5qBFvwzwM1JXOOBaeYmt1zM1u8hwZcBPHkLzUNODNqWHUKH5rr2vE=s0-d "[pics] » Cameron Diaz bad")
logiclife
12-01 05:42 PM
House Intelligence commt has nothing to do with immigration. How he votes or other people vote on immigration bills has nothing to do with the fact that they are in the intelligence committee.
dresses Cameron Diaz was spotted on
Rb_newsletter
04-06 04:26 PM
Canada�s information and technology sector is soon going to face severe shortage of workforce, findings of a latest study have warned.
canada immigration (http://www.canadaupdates.com), canada immigration news (http://www.canadaupdates.com)
Yes we have heard similar AINP stories in the past.
canada immigration (http://www.canadaupdates.com), canada immigration news (http://www.canadaupdates.com)
Yes we have heard similar AINP stories in the past.
more...
makeup Cameron Diaz in #39;Bad
geniousatwork
09-23 06:21 PM
I saw two LUDs recently 09/11 and 09/14 on my case.
girlfriend cameron diaz bad teacher
fittan
04-02 11:38 AM
Hi,
My I-140 was filed at VSC on 7/7/07. It was later transferred to TSC.
In this case, would I base my I-140 processing time on VSC which is stucked at 04/01/2006 or TSC which is at 08/15/2007?
I was hoping the later but I just called USCIS customer service and they said that A) it is based on WHERE YOU INITIALLY FILED and B) my application will eventually be sent back to VSC. I appreciate if someone can verify this. Thanks.
Fittan
My I-140 was filed at VSC on 7/7/07. It was later transferred to TSC.
In this case, would I base my I-140 processing time on VSC which is stucked at 04/01/2006 or TSC which is at 08/15/2007?
I was hoping the later but I just called USCIS customer service and they said that A) it is based on WHERE YOU INITIALLY FILED and B) my application will eventually be sent back to VSC. I appreciate if someone can verify this. Thanks.
Fittan
hairstyles Cameron Diaz is a Sexy Bad
sunny1000
05-30 02:25 PM
05/30/2008: Corrected TSC I-140 Processing Times - Not 08/26/2007 But 07/16/2007
* AILA has reported that the TSC corrected the error in its 05/15/2008 processing time report for the I-140 processing times. The date of 08/26/2007 was an error and the correct date should have been 07/16/2007. The official report will be corrected soon :(
source: www.immigration-law.com
* AILA has reported that the TSC corrected the error in its 05/15/2008 processing time report for the I-140 processing times. The date of 08/26/2007 was an error and the correct date should have been 07/16/2007. The official report will be corrected soon :(
source: www.immigration-law.com
hmehta
05-21 09:07 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no ammendments which address the EB based retrogession.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm
bluez25
08-23 01:36 PM
Guys,
Look at this thread. This guy got his case assigned to an officer who was no more with USCIS and stuck for almost more than years...... That is a torture.........
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=261980
Stay on top of your case and find out of your's n the dead box like that....
Look at this thread. This guy got his case assigned to an officer who was no more with USCIS and stuck for almost more than years...... That is a torture.........
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=261980
Stay on top of your case and find out of your's n the dead box like that....
No comments:
Post a Comment