Thursday, June 23, 2011

selena gomez vanity fair oscar party

images Selena Gomez Justin Bieber selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. 2011 Vanity Fair Oscar Party:
  • 2011 Vanity Fair Oscar Party:



  • rajuram
    08-20 12:50 AM
    Having been in these forums for years now...I know that IV cannot do much about retrogression until president decides to push for CIR. That may be at least 1 year away, if not more. Recapture of visa numbers is also next to impossible in this economy.

    But somethings that may be worth trying in the interim are -

    1. More flexibility in changing jobs under AC21, to allow career progression. This may not require a legislative fix.

    2. Longer duration AP.

    3. Fee reduction for 2nd & subsequent renewal of EADs and APs.

    4. An apology from USCIS for the delay!!





    wallpaper 2011 Vanity Fair Oscar Party: selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
  • Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez



  • GC_LOOKIN
    05-08 11:27 PM
    I think if iam not wrong its not based of the priority date or anything else. Its just random
    we received a soft LUD on 04-30 we are july 2007 filers..not sure what it means..





    selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
  • Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez



  • Ann Ruben
    07-20 07:33 AM
    without seeing your son's complete record and carefully researching the NY criminal code, it is impossible to give correct legal advice.





    2011 Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
  • Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber



  • fromnaija
    11-17 11:51 AM
    Hmmm...

    In my view I would say that it has more chances to go through between Jan 2007 and August 2007. After that, it is poticial campaign all over again.

    That is just my humble opinion.

    Regards,

    Tito

    You are right! I also do not think anything will get passed until 2007. SKILL or CIR will only get passed in the January to August 2007 timeframe. By 2008, focus will be on the Presidential election.



    more...


    selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Did actress Selena Gomez and
  • Did actress Selena Gomez and



  • Mayday
    04-05 11:00 AM
    If I leave US now, will I be banned 3 years to enter, even though my H1-B and I-94 now have all valid dates?

    I doubt they will find out your were out of status at border - as they must only check current I-94 and they have troubles finding all your I-94s or even any I-94s you have if you do not have them with you. So I am pretty sure they will only check the latest one you have in your hand (though I am not border patrol officer but I have gone through the procedure of looking-up my status at border control checkpoint inside USA).

    But green card application process requires to look through all your history and this is when it will be brought up. You need a better attorney on this question then your current attorney is. I guess it would be a good idea to exclude this period somehow from green card application by applying later or a good lawyer might be able to appeal to some regulations that could resolve it as it was not entirely your fault, since I-94 does not have to match passport validity dates and so it was border patrol officer mistake at first.





    selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. 16 of 24. Selena
  • 16 of 24. Selena



  • vedicman
    01-04 08:34 AM
    Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.

    Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.

    The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.

    The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.

    The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.

    Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.

    The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.

    Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.

    Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.

    So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.

    Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?

    There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.



    Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.

    The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.

    But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.

    Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.

    Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.

    Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.

    Suro in Wasahington Post

    Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com



    more...


    selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
  • Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez



  • raysaikat
    10-10 11:26 AM
    Thank you!

    I am not quiting my company but I am moving to India. In that case what will happen ?

    Your valuable inputs are greatly appreciated.

    Thank you very much!

    I would have said what Phani said. Essentially, you must be on valid H1-B status; otherwise your husband's H-4 status is not valid. This means that you must remain employed in US as an US employee (get your paycheck in US, pay all US taxes, file US tax returns, etc.). For a short duration, it may be possible to remain an US employee and work from India (as a business trip), but I do not see that happening on a permanent basis.





    2010 Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Selena Gomez Justin Bieber
  • Selena Gomez Justin Bieber



  • indigokiwi
    04-15 12:06 PM
    Thanks coolngood4u80 and Shanmugnathan ....these are great ideas..can you also please post the Facebook link to 485 filing campaign on this thread??

    Here is the Facebook link (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Immigration-Voice-Grass-roots-Campaigns/150562351660693?v=info)
    (Or search for "Immigration Voice Grassroots Campaigns and the community
    will show up on the search list).



    more...


    selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Vanity Fair Oscar party in
  • Vanity Fair Oscar party in



  • ArunAntonio
    05-31 04:55 PM
    Now is the time to take action.





    hair Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. 2011 Vanity Fair Oscar Party:
  • 2011 Vanity Fair Oscar Party:



  • mchundi
    07-28 10:17 AM
    Thanks for the reply Mchundi, however, if i CHANGE the job does the rule for a 3 year H1B STILL apply? I mean how does the 3 year thing apply to me? I only have a little over 1 year on this current H1 (out of SIX years).

    h1b-tristate,
    All this was discussed a few times in this thread and other threads as well.
    http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1216
    --MC



    more...


    selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Selena Gomez – Vanity Fair
  • Selena Gomez – Vanity Fair



  • pappu
    09-14 03:51 PM
    call 732-297-9886 and ask questions





    hot Did actress Selena Gomez and selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Vanity Fair Oscar party.
  • Vanity Fair Oscar party.



  • gc2
    09-23 06:45 AM
    bump...



    more...


    house selena gomez vanity fair oscar selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. 2011 Vanity Fair Oscar Party
  • 2011 Vanity Fair Oscar Party



  • americandesi
    04-06 01:31 PM
    Refer http://www.murthy.com/pr_thngs.html and search for

    "It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."

    As suggested by "Optimystic", any time between 6 to 12 months should be ok.





    tattoo 16 of 24. Selena selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
  • Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez



  • CaliGC
    06-15 04:31 PM
    see the reply
    Any reason why your case was transferred to local office? Our PD is becoming current on July 1st do you recommend me taking an appointment and visiting the local office? please suggest.

    Also, please elobrate the interview information you had, and what you carried for the interview.

    TIA.



    more...


    pictures Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. selena gomez vanity fair
  • selena gomez vanity fair



  • fromnaija
    12-03 04:09 PM
    With due respect to Prashanthi, I don't think the OP aged out of his I-485. Since his parent submitted their and his I-485 in 2007 (that is before he turned 21), his application is protected under CSPA. In fact with respect to EB, once the I-485 is submitted and then the PD retrogresses, the child's age is locked in and the application will be approved whenever the PD becomes current again.

    See page 3 of this document:

    http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/CSPA2_pub.pdf


    Visa Availability Date Regression
    If a visa availability date regresses, and an alien has already filed a Form I-485 based on an approved Form I-130 or Form I-140, the Service should retain the Form I-485 and note the visa availability date at the time the Form I-485 was filed. Once the visa number again becomes available for that preference category, determine whether the beneficiary is a “child” using the visa availability date marked on the Form I-485. If, however, an alien has not filed a Form I-485 prior to the visa availability date regressing, and then files a Form I-485 when the visa availability date again becomes current, the alien’s “age” should be determined using the subsequent visa availability date.


    It's risky for the OP to go out of the US while his application is pending. However, it can be done if he has advance parole. He will have to return each year to renew his AP. If this is a risk you are willing to take, you could go but be aware of this.





    dresses Vanity Fair Oscar party. selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Selena Gomez at the Vanity
  • Selena Gomez at the Vanity



  • snathan
    04-26 05:43 PM
    Thanks UKannan,

    That is the first thing I did and the cust rep said it is 1 bag, moreover, she said talk to your travel agent.

    Also, it is different to hear from cust rep and then get the actual experience in front of the check-in staff. Hence I was asking recent experiences here.

    Please don't get me wrong, but traveling with 2 toddlers, the last thing I want is baggage hassle.

    Two bags, each can be max. 20 kg.



    more...


    makeup Vanity Fair Oscar party in selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. selena gomez vanity fair oscar
  • selena gomez vanity fair oscar



  • waitingmygc
    05-20 11:48 PM
    I understand two I-140s, one existing (EB-3) and second new I-140 (EB2), but you have also mentioned more. Why need more than two, in what circumstances?





    girlfriend Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. couple. We#39;re dating:
  • couple. We#39;re dating:



  • BharatPremi
    07-27 12:49 PM
    The correct answer would be differed on the basis of your current status.
    Are you currently H1 holder or H4 holder?





    hairstyles Selena Gomez – Vanity Fair selena gomez vanity fair oscar party. Oscars Party. Justin
  • Oscars Party. Justin



  • h1techSlave
    10-01 11:02 AM
    I just wanted to point out that a delayed FBI name check is useless any way.

    If the purpose of the name check is to identify criminals, that process must be completed within a few hours. If the checking process takes more than 24 hours, than what is the use of the check?

    Currently the FBI name check system is a bonanza for a criminal. He/She will have 2 - 3 years to commit the crime, before the FBI catches up with him/her.

    I think the system was originally designed to check the names of people outside the country. In that case, a delay is not at all harmful.





    chaks7
    01-20 09:09 AM
    We are expecting, so I do not think it is possible to change insurance. We still tried and got rejected. So that we will leave us with COBRA in case my wife chooses to quit or something happens to her job. And does H4 visa affect COBRA coverage? If you can answer this question that will be very helpful.





    gctoget
    09-26 12:22 PM
    How long does it take to get EAD card by post after Finger printing is done?



    No comments:

    Post a Comment