bhartigorkar
06-18 12:56 PM
1. After importing Photoshop file in to Blend,right click on any PSD layer that you want to convert it in control.Then choose MAKE IT CONTROL and you can select any style like button etc that you want.
2. Select the control,in properties panel click on event icon then choose event that you want and double click in it ,then you can write the code for that EVENT in Visual Studio.
Hope it will help.
2. Select the control,in properties panel click on event icon then choose event that you want and double click in it ,then you can write the code for that EVENT in Visual Studio.
Hope it will help.
wallpaper Natalie Portman takes her dog
yuvarajc
09-13 08:52 PM
Iam sure lot of people have asked this question.
Iam in my 6th yr of H1b.
I have my I140 approved and I received my 3 yrs extension.
Question is can i shift jobs now? What are my options?
Once I move to the new job and file for GC, can I claim the old PD date ?
Thanks
Iam in my 6th yr of H1b.
I have my I140 approved and I received my 3 yrs extension.
Question is can i shift jobs now? What are my options?
Once I move to the new job and file for GC, can I claim the old PD date ?
Thanks
Blog Feeds
07-06 02:40 PM
From the NY Times: Seeking to inject their views into the revived debate over immigration overhaul, several big-city police chiefs urged Congress on Wednesday to draft a new policy that improves public safety by bringing illegal immigrants out of the shadows. The chiefs � updating recommendations made in 2006 by the leaders of more than 50 urban police departments � called for an overhaul that would integrate immigrants into the legal system, possibly with driver�s licenses, and separate the local police from immigration enforcement. �We�re in the business of delivering a police service whether the person has had a car...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/more-top-police-chiefs-back-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/more-top-police-chiefs-back-immigration-reform.html)
2011 of Natalie Portman walking
yumyum20
08-09 06:06 PM
This is very confusing. I already sent my I-485 along with a new filing fee of $1010 in total $930 for the application and $80 biometric fee last August 3rd. USCIS already received my application my question is are they going to reject my I-485 b/c they just revised that we have to pay the old filing fee for July Bulletin? I used The current I-485 form version dated �7/30/07 Y�.
I'm so confused! Due to this, I'm just gonna send another application b/c the chances of them rejecting/returning it back to me is High. If they don't return it back this week then I won't be able to file my I-485 after August 17th. Is ok to send another application? Can I just attach an explanation? I would rather take this chance than not being able to file it again after Aug 17.
Can someone please tell me the old filing fee including the biometric fee??
I just couldn't find this on their website.... I'm so lost.. thanks for the help
I'm so confused! Due to this, I'm just gonna send another application b/c the chances of them rejecting/returning it back to me is High. If they don't return it back this week then I won't be able to file my I-485 after August 17th. Is ok to send another application? Can I just attach an explanation? I would rather take this chance than not being able to file it again after Aug 17.
Can someone please tell me the old filing fee including the biometric fee??
I just couldn't find this on their website.... I'm so lost.. thanks for the help
more...
darkinf00
04-29 10:35 PM
i need to import a image file to fill as the surface material for objects in my movie but i tried to import eps files made in paintshop pro 7 and it says it can not import this, i want to ask how do i import an eps file and make it a material, pls help!
mygcstory
07-16 11:11 PM
Hi,
I have an approved labor, H1 Visa stamp still valid 2.5 years more. I will be applying for I140/485 once this debacle settles.
Can any one tell me, what are the consequences of leaving the US for a weeks vacation in India, while the application is in progress? Some say it is abandoning the application.....Would anyone know
Also, my wife is now on a B1. When I add her name to the 140/485 and she comes back as an H4, will it cause issues
Thanks for taking the time
-GC
I have an approved labor, H1 Visa stamp still valid 2.5 years more. I will be applying for I140/485 once this debacle settles.
Can any one tell me, what are the consequences of leaving the US for a weeks vacation in India, while the application is in progress? Some say it is abandoning the application.....Would anyone know
Also, my wife is now on a B1. When I add her name to the 140/485 and she comes back as an H4, will it cause issues
Thanks for taking the time
-GC
more...
srinivasj
07-07 01:38 PM
Yes, you need to get the difference in fees. HDFC knows about this and will issue a new colored fee slip.
Thanks Oscarzumaran....do they issue a new receipt number too..? or can I still use my old one just in case if dates open up...?
Thanks Oscarzumaran....do they issue a new receipt number too..? or can I still use my old one just in case if dates open up...?
2010 Natalie Portman Brings her Two
gc??
04-27 10:19 AM
unless your paperwork is shady, the fact that your company is in audit should not affect you. if you have filed for i-485 change jobs........
more...
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
On 10/01/09, President Obama signed a continuing resolution to fund continued federal government operations through October 31, 2009. Included in the legislation were provisions to extend the E-Verify, Religious Worker, Conrad 30 and EB-5 programs.
The continuing resolution was attached to the FY10 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill (H.R. 2918), and was passed by the House of Representatives on 9/25/09 and the Senate on 9/30/09.
The E-Verify, Religious Worker, Conrad 30 and EB-5 programs have all been extended for an additional 30 days, though all they may be extended further in the coming weeks once the Senate and House conference the FY10 Homeland Security Appropriations bill (H.R. 2892).
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/latest-immigration-actions-by-pres-obama.aspx?ref=rss)
The continuing resolution was attached to the FY10 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill (H.R. 2918), and was passed by the House of Representatives on 9/25/09 and the Senate on 9/30/09.
The E-Verify, Religious Worker, Conrad 30 and EB-5 programs have all been extended for an additional 30 days, though all they may be extended further in the coming weeks once the Senate and House conference the FY10 Homeland Security Appropriations bill (H.R. 2892).
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/latest-immigration-actions-by-pres-obama.aspx?ref=rss)
hair Peed-off Natalie Portman gets
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
more...
snathan
02-05 03:20 PM
Hello,
My I-140 was approved in August 2009 and my PD is Jan-2004 (EB3). I want to know when i can apply for I-485, should i have to wait till my PD becomes Current or is there any other way by which i can file the I-485. Please shed some light on this topic and thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks ! ! :confused: :rolleyes:
You need to wait for your PD become current...may be in 2019.
good luck.
My I-140 was approved in August 2009 and my PD is Jan-2004 (EB3). I want to know when i can apply for I-485, should i have to wait till my PD becomes Current or is there any other way by which i can file the I-485. Please shed some light on this topic and thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks ! ! :confused: :rolleyes:
You need to wait for your PD become current...may be in 2019.
good luck.
hot a Natalie Portman fan .
gcformeornot
04-09 08:37 AM
I filled 'AOS' in that field
Did you get your EAD?
Did you get your EAD?
more...
house Photos of Natalie Portman and
lonedesi
07-10 03:06 PM
I was wondering how many people really got the opportunity to use the reinstated PPS service for I-140 petition? Has it been useful to the most of people who are stuck in the I-140 backlogs for more than year now or has it only helped a tiny segment of the folks who really needed it to maintain their status?
What is the purpose of USCIS reinstating this PPS if it only helps only very few people. I think its time, USCIS either process the pending applications soon or reinstate PPS for everyone. 1 year is a long time to wait for an I-140 approval when USCIS can re-allocate the staff at quick notice (like those folks who received EADs in two weeks during June 08) if they want to. Its high time USCIS address this issue and get us out of this mess. Visa numbers does not have to be available to process I-140..so there is no reason for them to delay or give excuses.
What is the purpose of USCIS reinstating this PPS if it only helps only very few people. I think its time, USCIS either process the pending applications soon or reinstate PPS for everyone. 1 year is a long time to wait for an I-140 approval when USCIS can re-allocate the staff at quick notice (like those folks who received EADs in two weeks during June 08) if they want to. Its high time USCIS address this issue and get us out of this mess. Visa numbers does not have to be available to process I-140..so there is no reason for them to delay or give excuses.
tattoo Natalie Portman walking her
grimreaper
05-12 10:55 AM
:)On a lighter note, the USCIS is going to start issuing Green cards that are actually Green. So now as the name suggests, the cards are going to be "Green".
USCIS - USCIS To Issue Redesigned Green Card</br>Questions and Answers (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ab8c3893c4888210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
USCIS - USCIS To Issue Redesigned Green Card</br>Questions and Answers (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ab8c3893c4888210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
more...
pictures Natalie Portman
augustus
06-25 03:08 PM
Dear All,
Can someone tell me how long it takes to get 485 filing receipt? Who gets it ,you or the lawyer? What information should a responsible lawyer pass to you after 485 is filed?
Please let me know. It would be good information for everyone.
Can someone tell me how long it takes to get 485 filing receipt? Who gets it ,you or the lawyer? What information should a responsible lawyer pass to you after 485 is filed?
Please let me know. It would be good information for everyone.
dresses Natalie Portman was urinated
tejonidhi
02-04 04:43 PM
I am working for a client which gave me an offer for a respectable amount. it is much higher than the amount specified in ETA 9089 (F/5) column. my Onet code for the original labor is 15-1071.00. my new job is defined as System Specialist. my job functions( roles) are pretty much the same as my original labor certificate. I tried to search the Onet Code for System specialist and did not find a good match.
Can any one suggest me what are the options.
I also wanted to know weather USCIS will send any letter to new employer regarding to the offer extended to me. MY situation is the client is not willing to sponsor me.
Thank you
Can any one suggest me what are the options.
I also wanted to know weather USCIS will send any letter to new employer regarding to the offer extended to me. MY situation is the client is not willing to sponsor me.
Thank you
more...
makeup Natalie Portman goes from dog
aillarramendi
08-31 11:28 AM
:confused: I want to start this thread to know for how long we will be waiting for receipts:
Filed I-140, I-485, EAD and AP : 08/14/2007
Service Center : TSC
EB3 - ROW
PD : 07/2007
Receipt: Waiting
Check cashed: Not yet
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12765
Filed I-140, I-485, EAD and AP : 08/14/2007
Service Center : TSC
EB3 - ROW
PD : 07/2007
Receipt: Waiting
Check cashed: Not yet
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12765
girlfriend NATALIE PORTMAN PEE#39;D ON?
saileshjiandani
11-06 10:42 PM
Hi guys,
Please provide your valuable thoughts.
I have a Masters degree in the profession I'm working with 2 yrs of work exp prior to starting at this company. Altogether I have 5+ yrs of exp (prior + current).
My job requirements states "BA/BS or equivalent required with 5+ yrs of work exp".
I've read at some sites that if a candidate doesn't have a Masters degree, a Bachelor's + 5 yrs of exp will suffice, but the job description should require a Master's degree. In this case, I have a Master's degre with my job requirement saying "Bachelor's + 5yrs". Will I qualify for EB2? Please suggest.
Also what other options (tweaking requirements a bit) will you suggest?
Thanks,
Sailesh
Please provide your valuable thoughts.
I have a Masters degree in the profession I'm working with 2 yrs of work exp prior to starting at this company. Altogether I have 5+ yrs of exp (prior + current).
My job requirements states "BA/BS or equivalent required with 5+ yrs of work exp".
I've read at some sites that if a candidate doesn't have a Masters degree, a Bachelor's + 5 yrs of exp will suffice, but the job description should require a Master's degree. In this case, I have a Master's degre with my job requirement saying "Bachelor's + 5yrs". Will I qualify for EB2? Please suggest.
Also what other options (tweaking requirements a bit) will you suggest?
Thanks,
Sailesh
hairstyles Natalie Portman ( green
waitin_toolong
07-23 12:58 PM
That requirement is only for foreign passport holders travelling on visa/or visa waiver.
Us citizens are required tp present a non-expired passport, it does not say how long the passport needs to be valid for
Us citizens are required tp present a non-expired passport, it does not say how long the passport needs to be valid for
mena
11-26 11:54 PM
Hi,
I got RFE on Advance Parole requesting proof that I have complied with NSEERS.
All I know is I went for Special Registeration back in 2003 when it initially started and citizens of specific countries were required to go for that special registeration. The immigration officer stamped my I-94 and wrote a FIN# on my passport and I-94.
Last time I travelled out of US was back in May 2001 for couple of weeks.
Now got this RFE any idea what do I need to submit.
Thanks
I got RFE on Advance Parole requesting proof that I have complied with NSEERS.
All I know is I went for Special Registeration back in 2003 when it initially started and citizens of specific countries were required to go for that special registeration. The immigration officer stamped my I-94 and wrote a FIN# on my passport and I-94.
Last time I travelled out of US was back in May 2001 for couple of weeks.
Now got this RFE any idea what do I need to submit.
Thanks
mathranik
08-14 01:33 PM
Hello everyone!
My wife has filed for my immigration and AOS around a week back. I would be expecting the biometrics appointment letter to arrive by the 25th of August. Now, I got a call from India yesterday informing me about my grandmother being admitted in the hospital, almost breathing her last. The doctors have all but given up.
My question here is whether I can go to the USCIS office with the doctor's letters and all the remaining proofs to expedite my AP well before my biometrics are done? If yes, what else would I require in terms of documents? I can just barely wait getting it done, but I dont want to leave without the AP document.
P.S.: I haven't yet received any NOAs.
Thank you.
My wife has filed for my immigration and AOS around a week back. I would be expecting the biometrics appointment letter to arrive by the 25th of August. Now, I got a call from India yesterday informing me about my grandmother being admitted in the hospital, almost breathing her last. The doctors have all but given up.
My question here is whether I can go to the USCIS office with the doctor's letters and all the remaining proofs to expedite my AP well before my biometrics are done? If yes, what else would I require in terms of documents? I can just barely wait getting it done, but I dont want to leave without the AP document.
P.S.: I haven't yet received any NOAs.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment