ramreddy
07-27 05:35 PM
I heard that if the current state u work in State A , is not the same as the one labor was filed - State B , then it can trigger an RFE.
My Q is HOW frequent is this possibility ? Has anyone experienced this ? Also my PD WILL Be current next month and I filed AR 11 about 10 days ago . Will that impact ? I read somewhere someone posted an article that change of address can tigger RFE at 485 Stage.But changed address in the same State B , I have been working in since 2008 ( I filed 485 in 2008 from State B ) . The change of address is only some 20 miles away from the previous one.
Any clues .. folks ? thanks
Rama
My Q is HOW frequent is this possibility ? Has anyone experienced this ? Also my PD WILL Be current next month and I filed AR 11 about 10 days ago . Will that impact ? I read somewhere someone posted an article that change of address can tigger RFE at 485 Stage.But changed address in the same State B , I have been working in since 2008 ( I filed 485 in 2008 from State B ) . The change of address is only some 20 miles away from the previous one.
Any clues .. folks ? thanks
Rama
wallpaper AS sympathy cards and flowers
kumar1
12-17 05:49 PM
There is a retrogression in perm process..only those who came to this country before 2000 can file for PERM.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
kidding man.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
kidding man.
sweet_jungle
08-26 04:41 PM
Just saw this on .
http://www..com/discuss/485eb/16934615/
EB3 India is U for both August and Sep. How is USCIS still processing and approving GCs? Have they still not recovered from the madness of approving GCs?
Who knows, some July 2 Texas filers might get GCs in Sep.
http://www..com/discuss/485eb/16934615/
EB3 India is U for both August and Sep. How is USCIS still processing and approving GCs? Have they still not recovered from the madness of approving GCs?
Who knows, some July 2 Texas filers might get GCs in Sep.
2011 Flowers Sympathy Thinking
Blog Feeds
12-11 10:00 PM
The CBO report DREAM Act advocates have been touting reflects a net plus of $2.3 billion against the federal deficit. But that's the SENATE version that was analyzed. If the antis are right and 2,000,000 people will benefit from DREAM, the House version's new $2525 in filing fees will mean an additional $5 billion will be raised. Why, it would be fiscally irresponsible NOT to vote for DREAM!
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/new-version-of-dream-act-would-raise-additional-5-billion.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/new-version-of-dream-act-would-raise-additional-5-billion.html)
more...
.jpg "What To Say In A Sympathy Card")
Macaca
06-22 06:55 AM
Senate Passes Energy Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html?hpid=topnews) Democrats Prevail; Mileage Standard Would Be Raised By Sholnn Freeman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sholnn+freeman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, June 22, 2007
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
feedfront
09-02 03:21 PM
Thanks, it would have been better if separated by service center.
more...
jungalee43
06-17 09:41 AM
There is an excellent article in Wall Street Journal by a former Reagan staffer discussing what would Pres. Reagan do today on immigration. For most of the Republicans Pres. Reagan is a hero, an icon. But are they really following Reaganism? Please read this article. I am not sure whether it is OK to copy paste the article. You may need to log in to WSJ.
Peter Robinson: Immigration: What Would Reagan Do? - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282431263367708.html)
Peter Robinson: Immigration: What Would Reagan Do? - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282431263367708.html)
2010 Sympathy Cards…
curiosity_76
08-15 11:50 AM
i remember there are about 40,000 file to TSC on July 2nd, while 35,000 file to NSC. Why no one say something?
more...
coopheal
04-05 08:40 AM
Are you a present/past member of Golden Key International Honour Society. Do you think it is worth the membership.
Here are couple of links for this.
Golden Key Website (http://www.goldenkey.org/)
Wiki Link (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGolden_ Key_International_Honour_Society&ei=oei5S-icMKXkNPWx0OEL&usg=AFQjCNGepwVoAcLdOLaBOpEv0t4dcW_0Eg&sig2=zfz0FIxBrxZh1KqoO7yNEg)
Here are couple of links for this.
Golden Key Website (http://www.goldenkey.org/)
Wiki Link (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGolden_ Key_International_Honour_Society&ei=oei5S-icMKXkNPWx0OEL&usg=AFQjCNGepwVoAcLdOLaBOpEv0t4dcW_0Eg&sig2=zfz0FIxBrxZh1KqoO7yNEg)
hair on a sympathy card. Think.
pappu
01-02 12:19 PM
Thanks a lot I am sendiing you a PM right away
more...
priya777
10-17 12:53 PM
AS my PD is current july2003 EB2 and i have my AP documents.. can i travel to india for 1 month ??? as in case my I-485 is approved when i am in india what will happen to my status?
what all documents do i need to take when i go to india? Please help me
what all documents do i need to take when i go to india? Please help me
hot What To Say In A Sympathy Card
Inform12
06-08 02:41 PM
was here in the US in B2 visa. I applied for change of status (to F-1) and after waiting for several months, they told me that my request has been denied. What are the options that I have if I still want to stay in the US
more...
house Stampin#39; Up! Sympathy Cards
rc123
11-04 09:16 AM
Hi All,
I sent h1b extension application to california center on june 22nd and my application is still not approved. My current visa was valid until July 30th. I need to travel to India on Dec 10th due to urgent reasons . Please suggest what should I do
1. Can I travel while my extension is pending?
2. Can I raise a service request to speed up the processing?
2. or Upgrading to PP is the only option?
I do have EAD and advance parole through my husband's GC application. If I use parole for travel what happens to my H1b visa and GC application filed through my employer. My visa will still be valid or not?
Please help...
Thanks in advance
Ritu
I sent h1b extension application to california center on june 22nd and my application is still not approved. My current visa was valid until July 30th. I need to travel to India on Dec 10th due to urgent reasons . Please suggest what should I do
1. Can I travel while my extension is pending?
2. Can I raise a service request to speed up the processing?
2. or Upgrading to PP is the only option?
I do have EAD and advance parole through my husband's GC application. If I use parole for travel what happens to my H1b visa and GC application filed through my employer. My visa will still be valid or not?
Please help...
Thanks in advance
Ritu
tattoo Card Construction Details:
CantLeaveAmerica
03-17 09:39 PM
Hi,
I have been without a pay for 2 months now, will that affect my I-485 application which was filed in July 07
I have been without a pay for 2 months now, will that affect my I-485 application which was filed in July 07
more...
pictures Funeral Posies of Flowers.
krithi
02-08 02:15 PM
Job on Labor Cert.
Technical Services Manager (Software Engineer, Programmer Analyst alternate acceptable job titles) - Daily operations of department, analyze
workflow, Develop information resources, provide data security, control,
strategic computing, disaster recovery.
Utilize SAP/PeopleSoft, J2EE,
MPEG/MP3, .NET/VB, DB2, C++, SQL/Oracle.
New Job Title and Duties.
Sr. Programmer Analyst
Develop IT software using .NET technologies and SQL Server. Maintain the product, disaster recovery and analyze workflow.
If i invoke AC21 do you guys think would there be any issue in my 485 approval.
Thanks,
Java
Technical Services Manager (Software Engineer, Programmer Analyst alternate acceptable job titles) - Daily operations of department, analyze
workflow, Develop information resources, provide data security, control,
strategic computing, disaster recovery.
Utilize SAP/PeopleSoft, J2EE,
MPEG/MP3, .NET/VB, DB2, C++, SQL/Oracle.
New Job Title and Duties.
Sr. Programmer Analyst
Develop IT software using .NET technologies and SQL Server. Maintain the product, disaster recovery and analyze workflow.
If i invoke AC21 do you guys think would there be any issue in my 485 approval.
Thanks,
Java
dresses creating sympathy cards.
garugu
01-12 09:50 AM
Hi,
I am in 7th year of H1B which expires in Dec 2011. I-140 is approved. Applied for H1B extension in Oct2010 (after 6 yrs completed) based on approved I-140 but got extension for only 1 yr till 2011 (got client letter for 1 yr only) . Can i transfer my H1B to new Employer based on my approved I-140 from my current Employer? If so, can i get 3 yr extension with the new Employer or will the new H1B be valid only till 2011?
Thanks
I am in 7th year of H1B which expires in Dec 2011. I-140 is approved. Applied for H1B extension in Oct2010 (after 6 yrs completed) based on approved I-140 but got extension for only 1 yr till 2011 (got client letter for 1 yr only) . Can i transfer my H1B to new Employer based on my approved I-140 from my current Employer? If so, can i get 3 yr extension with the new Employer or will the new H1B be valid only till 2011?
Thanks
more...
makeup an e-mail sympathy cards,
pd052009
03-31 12:00 PM
Countdown: 31 More days to go (Incl. today)
Required Yes Votes : 5000
Read from the below link for more details
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2243885-post2.html (Support Thread for "I485 filing w/o Curr. PD" initiative)
Required Yes Votes : 5000
Read from the below link for more details
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2243885-post2.html (Support Thread for "I485 filing w/o Curr. PD" initiative)
girlfriend Here is a sympathy card I made
badluk13
08-25 06:39 PM
All you have to do is...while in the preview and export editor click Fill Options in the output options box and then pick Mesh Gradiant shading from the fill style dropdown menu. That should solve the problem because it is probably rendering with cartoon average fill as default.
hairstyles Sympathy Cards: Nancy#39;s View
wandmaker
02-01 02:39 PM
Support IV and help yourself.
jack
10-22 07:52 PM
Hello everyone,
I obtained my F1 visa in Aug,2001 for 5 years and I initially came here for M.S. I have continued for PhD in 2003 and visited India every two years. My F1 expired in Jul,2006 but my I-20 is valid until Dec,2008.The real problem is that I have applied for Canadian PR this Oct and expecting to get it by Oct,2008.
Once I get my PR, I have to go to Canada for Visa stamping and my questions are related to this:
1) Since my F1 expired, Can I come back to US after PR stamping, without needing an F1 visa.?
2) Is it advisable to get my F1 visa stamping in India or Canada next year i.e in Oct 2008, or would it be too late? (since that would be two years after visa expiry).
PS: I wanted to get my F1 stamping only if it were necessary to go to India.
Any suggestions would help me a lot and thanks so much in advance.
I obtained my F1 visa in Aug,2001 for 5 years and I initially came here for M.S. I have continued for PhD in 2003 and visited India every two years. My F1 expired in Jul,2006 but my I-20 is valid until Dec,2008.The real problem is that I have applied for Canadian PR this Oct and expecting to get it by Oct,2008.
Once I get my PR, I have to go to Canada for Visa stamping and my questions are related to this:
1) Since my F1 expired, Can I come back to US after PR stamping, without needing an F1 visa.?
2) Is it advisable to get my F1 visa stamping in India or Canada next year i.e in Oct 2008, or would it be too late? (since that would be two years after visa expiry).
PS: I wanted to get my F1 stamping only if it were necessary to go to India.
Any suggestions would help me a lot and thanks so much in advance.
snhn
11-22 07:34 PM
Hello,
this is a bit different maybe since it deals with my mom. She was sponsored by my sister. She has been stuck in name check now for about 18 monts. Anyways, she is out of the country. She just left, and now my sister got a letter and appoinment letter for a 2nd finger print. My mother is using her advacne parole and the green card was filed for adjustment of status.
so the questiong is can my sister reschedule the appointment 8 months in the future or can she change the location for finger print to the office in the country where my mother is,
She is in Pakistan right now.
thanks
this is a bit different maybe since it deals with my mom. She was sponsored by my sister. She has been stuck in name check now for about 18 monts. Anyways, she is out of the country. She just left, and now my sister got a letter and appoinment letter for a 2nd finger print. My mother is using her advacne parole and the green card was filed for adjustment of status.
so the questiong is can my sister reschedule the appointment 8 months in the future or can she change the location for finger print to the office in the country where my mother is,
She is in Pakistan right now.
thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment