tslee
04-22 11:34 AM
Dear all:
May I ask what I should do in the following situation?
I hold F1 visa and my new job starts on Sept 1. The int'l student office of my current university mistakenly set my OPT start date on May 6. My OPT has been approved and EAD card arrived.
That is, I will have 120-plus "unemployment" days accumulated by early August, which will then violate the "90-day unemployment rule" of OPT.
I am under tremendous pressure and really want to hear your opinions.
Many thanks in advance!
May I ask what I should do in the following situation?
I hold F1 visa and my new job starts on Sept 1. The int'l student office of my current university mistakenly set my OPT start date on May 6. My OPT has been approved and EAD card arrived.
That is, I will have 120-plus "unemployment" days accumulated by early August, which will then violate the "90-day unemployment rule" of OPT.
I am under tremendous pressure and really want to hear your opinions.
Many thanks in advance!
wallpaper Choose Sexy Hairstyles for
Antonio Trivelin
June 26th, 2006, 08:35 PM
Who knows when it arrives at the stores ? ( B&H could be ).
http://www.popphoto.com/howto/2442/nikon-capture-nx-nikons-answer-to-photoshop.html
http://www.popphoto.com/howto/2442/nikon-capture-nx-nikons-answer-to-photoshop.html
RNGC
10-22 01:40 PM
Ok, Lots of people have been telling good ideas.....Here is one more.
As part of our campaign on these legislations (HR 5882, HR 5921 & HR 6039 ), I wrote to my congressman. Afte sometime I got a reply and I was suprised that he had personally signed it. I know many IV members have contacted their congressman/Senators and they might have got a reply back.
My idea is that we should all mail the responses we got from our law makers to IV core. They can collect these letters, highlight the positive responses the lawmakers have said and send them to the chairman of "Judiciary" committee. This way IV can raise its stature and be know as a organisation for Legal Immigrants who are doing the right thing by contacting the law makers.
Makes sense ?
As part of our campaign on these legislations (HR 5882, HR 5921 & HR 6039 ), I wrote to my congressman. Afte sometime I got a reply and I was suprised that he had personally signed it. I know many IV members have contacted their congressman/Senators and they might have got a reply back.
My idea is that we should all mail the responses we got from our law makers to IV core. They can collect these letters, highlight the positive responses the lawmakers have said and send them to the chairman of "Judiciary" committee. This way IV can raise its stature and be know as a organisation for Legal Immigrants who are doing the right thing by contacting the law makers.
Makes sense ?
2011 The hairstyles used on the
today24
11-18 10:50 AM
Any suggestions please!
more...
myimmiv
12-17 02:10 PM
My wife will be coming back in April 2nd week through Denver. CO POE. Her AP is valid until June 3rd week.
My question is that is 2 months of AP validity / cushion enough or safe to enter the US.
Will she get a 1 year I-94 validity from the date of entry or only until her AP expires?
This question has also been posted in the member forum and I have posted it here to get advice from the eminent lawyers from a legal standpoint.
Thanks in advance for all your time.
My question is that is 2 months of AP validity / cushion enough or safe to enter the US.
Will she get a 1 year I-94 validity from the date of entry or only until her AP expires?
This question has also been posted in the member forum and I have posted it here to get advice from the eminent lawyers from a legal standpoint.
Thanks in advance for all your time.
willy007
10-11 10:22 AM
I was trying to know what are the possibility of those people who have ported successfully and still got their GC approved.
I realized that people who already got their GC won't be visiting this site. But, if you have known somebody who did, vote on the poll please.
1. Changed jobs --> interview --> got GC (no RFE)
2. Changed jobs --> RFE --> invoke AC21 --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 only when requested)
3. Changed jobs --> invoke AC21 --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 voluntarily, but no more RFE)
4. Changed jobs --> invoke AC21 --> RFE --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 voluntarily, but still get a RFE later)
I realized that people who already got their GC won't be visiting this site. But, if you have known somebody who did, vote on the poll please.
1. Changed jobs --> interview --> got GC (no RFE)
2. Changed jobs --> RFE --> invoke AC21 --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 only when requested)
3. Changed jobs --> invoke AC21 --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 voluntarily, but no more RFE)
4. Changed jobs --> invoke AC21 --> RFE --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 voluntarily, but still get a RFE later)
more...
ilikekilo
04-12 01:53 PM
I had started my anual subscribtion this Friday (4/10/09). How long does it take to be admitted into the donors forum? I have sent the email with details that same day itself. I have not yet recieved a reciept or any RFEs. Hope there is no backlog:D:D:D
I think it takes a few days to confirm the sub....thnks
I think it takes a few days to confirm the sub....thnks
2010 Cool Asian Hair Styles Men
simikishore
07-26 10:16 PM
Attorneys please advice on my case below....
I applied for an I-485 during July Fiasco under EB3 category with an approved I-140(EB3). EB3 priority date is October 2005.
I also started another process later in EB2 category with same employer. My EB2 I-140 finally got approved recently and successfully porting the priority date from EB3 but did not file for I-485 in Eb2 yet.
Last week, my EB3 I-485 petition got approved even though my EB3 prority date is not current. I have got my welcome letter (I-797C) today. The COA is 26 on the notice.
My questions are:
Is it approved by error?
What are the risks involved for now and down the road.
Can we travel outside United States using this GC.
Will appreciate any advice.
I applied for an I-485 during July Fiasco under EB3 category with an approved I-140(EB3). EB3 priority date is October 2005.
I also started another process later in EB2 category with same employer. My EB2 I-140 finally got approved recently and successfully porting the priority date from EB3 but did not file for I-485 in Eb2 yet.
Last week, my EB3 I-485 petition got approved even though my EB3 prority date is not current. I have got my welcome letter (I-797C) today. The COA is 26 on the notice.
My questions are:
Is it approved by error?
What are the risks involved for now and down the road.
Can we travel outside United States using this GC.
Will appreciate any advice.
more...
jjlittlegiant
01-02 10:14 PM
H1B Transfer is not equal to H1B Renewal.
H1B transfer: when you change your job, you transfer your H1B visa to the new employer.
H1B Renewal: when you stay in the same company for 3 years, you need to file h1B renewal for the 2nd duration of 3 years.
H1B transfer: when you change your job, you transfer your H1B visa to the new employer.
H1B Renewal: when you stay in the same company for 3 years, you need to file h1B renewal for the 2nd duration of 3 years.
hair 2010 Modern Korean Hairstyle
GTGC
01-22 01:21 PM
My employer has been holding back my wages on some excuse or the other. Since I was awaiting my GC, I had no choice but co-operated with them. I got my GC last year in July 2010. I worked with them until September 2010 and due to this payment situation, I have chosen to work elsewhere.Now they promise to pay the back wages from 2010 but the payment never arrives. Repeated followups, emails and calls have yielded the same result. I am not sure what are my options here at this point. I no longer work for that Employer since they never pay on time.
I will appreciate your input.
I will appreciate your input.
more...
Blog Feeds
08-08 09:40 AM
From a press release from the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has dispatched her top detention advisor to Basile, Louisiana to meet with detainees who have monitored conditions and staged hunger strikes in the isolated ICE detention center during the last month. Dora Schriro, Director of the newly created Office of Detention Policy and Planning, is on her way to the South Louisiana Corrections Center now. Meanwhile, detainee Edgar Nelson Bojorge Alcantara entered his sixth day on hunger strike today. He and other detainees in the facility have held five hunger strikes...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/top-dhs-official-to-meet-hunger-strikers-in-new-orleans.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/top-dhs-official-to-meet-hunger-strikers-in-new-orleans.html)
hot Sexy asian men hairstyles
gbadrain
07-01 07:09 AM
I have B1/B2 Visa for 10 yrs and travelled to USA earlier and also planning to VISIT USA on B1/B2 Visa in the last week of July for just 10 days.
The doubt is that - "since I have H1B Visa CASE APPROVAL, can I travel to USA on B1/B2 Visa"
Someone suggested that I can travel but it is NOT ADVISABLE!!
:confused:
The doubt is that - "since I have H1B Visa CASE APPROVAL, can I travel to USA on B1/B2 Visa"
Someone suggested that I can travel but it is NOT ADVISABLE!!
:confused:
more...
house Asian layered hairstyle
kmk2002
04-08 12:21 AM
enquire Larrabee in SD.
http://larrabee.com/Index.html
Does any one have recommendations for a good immigration attorney in San Diego?
I want to start long time relationship for immigration issues as well as for my future company filings and issues. Please send me private messages as well.
http://larrabee.com/Index.html
Does any one have recommendations for a good immigration attorney in San Diego?
I want to start long time relationship for immigration issues as well as for my future company filings and issues. Please send me private messages as well.
tattoo and sexy on Asian faces.
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
more...
pictures Sexy asian men hairstyles
cool_guy_onnet1
06-24 03:24 PM
Hi, I have approved H1b through company "NewCompany" but my GC sponsoring company "GCcompany" is planning to cancel my APPROVED 140. Again, I know USCIS will do inted to deny and Yes, I have filed for 485 + it's been 180+ days but I guess the most important question of all is:-
"Will this affect my H1B status?' Since the approval for new 3 year (extension) was based on my 140 and now this thing is under jeopardy. If I use EAD, my wife will no longer be H4 and thats a different problem- Gosh when is thind going to end?"
"Will this affect my H1B status?' Since the approval for new 3 year (extension) was based on my 140 and now this thing is under jeopardy. If I use EAD, my wife will no longer be H4 and thats a different problem- Gosh when is thind going to end?"
dresses best asian hairstyle.
sertasheep
10-16 09:28 PM
Check out tips and tricks as well as pictures from meet-and-greet events at some of the IV Chapters on the IV blog at immigrationvoice.blogspot.com (http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com)
Also check out the list of quick links on the left hand side of the blog to access your state chapters.
Also check out the list of quick links on the left hand side of the blog to access your state chapters.
more...
makeup Asian bob hairstyle
hotbread1
05-16 12:35 PM
YOu should go ahead and file your response to RFE. I had the same issue with my case when my attorney did not inform me of a RFE. After missing the deadline, I filed my repone through a different attorney explaining the problemand USCIS accepte my response.
girlfriend Asian Hairstyles for women
itkris
03-05 07:45 PM
I applied for H1 on Oct 10 2010. I got an RFE - (relatively benign - proof of labor cert filing) on Feb 22. My attorney responded and they changed the status to RFE Response Review on March 3rd. Unfortunately, I'm planning to go to India on the 26th.
- Would upgrading to Premium help at this time?
- What is the typical response time between RFE response review and decision?
btw, this application was processed in the Vermont Service Center.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
- Would upgrading to Premium help at this time?
- What is the typical response time between RFE response review and decision?
btw, this application was processed in the Vermont Service Center.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
hairstyles best asian hairstyles.
Blog Feeds
05-25 08:20 AM
The American Immigration Council weighs in on the importance of the subject: The American Immigration Council�s Legal Action Center commends Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for convening today�s hearing on �Improving Efficiency and Ensuring Justice in the Immigration Court System.� Immigration courts have long suffered from crushing backlogs that can delay the scheduling of hearings for years at a time. Additionally, immigrants who appear before these courts enjoy fewer legal protections than most Americans expect from any fair system of justice. With the dramatic and rapid escalation of immigration enforcement policies and resources, too little...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/senate-holding-hearing-on-immigration-courts-today.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/senate-holding-hearing-on-immigration-courts-today.html)
Blog Feeds
07-20 03:40 PM
I've been a devoted fan of Adobe products for years - particularly Acrobat - and I'm happy to honor Adobe's CEO Shantanu Narayen. The Indian-born Narayen has a familiar story - he came to the US to pursue an advanced degree and then he was recruited by a tech company to stay. He began his career at Apple and then co-founded Pictra, a company that was one of the first involved with photo sharing over the Internet. He joined Adobe in 1998 and in 2005, at the age of 41, was promoted to his current position at the top of...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-shantanu-narayen-adobe-ceo.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-shantanu-narayen-adobe-ceo.html)
chiranjeevij
04-02 05:07 PM
Hi All,
My PERM details:
Filed 05/10/2008
Audited Sep 2008
Denied May 2010
Appealed Sep 2010 (Govt error)
Approved 03/25/2011
after nearly 3 yrs.
Another friend of mine (same company) was in the same boat, but his processing was like 3 months ahead of mine(for all these steps). His Appeal was sent to BALCA and he is waiting for their response.
encouragement for peeps out there.
My PERM details:
Filed 05/10/2008
Audited Sep 2008
Denied May 2010
Appealed Sep 2010 (Govt error)
Approved 03/25/2011
after nearly 3 yrs.
Another friend of mine (same company) was in the same boat, but his processing was like 3 months ahead of mine(for all these steps). His Appeal was sent to BALCA and he is waiting for their response.
encouragement for peeps out there.
0 comments:
Post a Comment