rjgleason
May 23rd, 2005, 06:11 AM
Gary, I like all three but the first shot is my favorite.....DOF (on the first) is good, (the shrubs midway in the photo could be sharper) not great but quite acceptable and the polarizer makes the shot shine. Good work (on all three)
Just noticed the first shot you had the AV at f/10.....I would have shut it down more.
Just noticed the first shot you had the AV at f/10.....I would have shut it down more.
wallpaper Round Face Shapes Hairstyles
sanjay02
06-29 06:38 PM
Follow directions in your interview letter with list of things to take. Have all the originals and photocopies. If your case is straight forward , I dont think you need an attorney or else if you think you need an attorney find a local person in your area who can accompany you.
I had an interview last Feb 2009, my case was pre-adjucated. My PD is 2005.
I had an interview last Feb 2009, my case was pre-adjucated. My PD is 2005.
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
2011 haircuts for round faces
kpchal2
03-03 07:42 AM
Hello forum gurus
I am planning on moving from Company A to Company B. I have an approved I-140 from Company A which was approved in Sept 2007 and also applied for 485 on July 2nd 2007. It has been almost 1.5 yrs since I applied for 485 and I-140 approval.
Planning to move from Company A to Company B. Company A will not revoke my I-140 that is for sure. I am moving to a good company with 1000+ workforce and in an upcoming industry. It is not a consulting firm. It is a product based company. My wife is currently on EAD and is relying on it to work.
What are the odds that my AC21 may be wrongfully denied. I am having a hard time sleeping while thinking about this. I am on my H1. Can she still use her EAD while we file a petition for Motion to Reopen in the event that the 485 is wrongfully denied or does she have to change to H4 immediatly.
Can some one share your thoughts.
thanks in advance
I am planning on moving from Company A to Company B. I have an approved I-140 from Company A which was approved in Sept 2007 and also applied for 485 on July 2nd 2007. It has been almost 1.5 yrs since I applied for 485 and I-140 approval.
Planning to move from Company A to Company B. Company A will not revoke my I-140 that is for sure. I am moving to a good company with 1000+ workforce and in an upcoming industry. It is not a consulting firm. It is a product based company. My wife is currently on EAD and is relying on it to work.
What are the odds that my AC21 may be wrongfully denied. I am having a hard time sleeping while thinking about this. I am on my H1. Can she still use her EAD while we file a petition for Motion to Reopen in the event that the 485 is wrongfully denied or does she have to change to H4 immediatly.
Can some one share your thoughts.
thanks in advance
more...
gc_chahiye
11-13 12:13 PM
I would appreciate if any of you could shed light on the following scenario:
If 485 is pending for over six months and someone switched the job using AC21 for a position which would require extended stay [upto 2-3 years] outside the US. Would it any way impact the GC process? Given that priority date is 2007, it is unlikely(?) that 485 would be adjusted in that time.
Thanks
you will need to come back to atleast get AP approvals (AP expires every year), and if you are served a fingerprint notice, then come back for that. If you are going to be definately out for the next few years, another option is to do consular processing; talk to a lawyer it depends a lot on your specific case.
If 485 is pending for over six months and someone switched the job using AC21 for a position which would require extended stay [upto 2-3 years] outside the US. Would it any way impact the GC process? Given that priority date is 2007, it is unlikely(?) that 485 would be adjusted in that time.
Thanks
you will need to come back to atleast get AP approvals (AP expires every year), and if you are served a fingerprint notice, then come back for that. If you are going to be definately out for the next few years, another option is to do consular processing; talk to a lawyer it depends a lot on your specific case.
morpheus
04-06 12:03 PM
Yes all of us can apply under 218 also but then I am not sure if I will want to wait another 6 years before applying for a green card. Also there is no set category under which these people will be able to apply for their green cards. So at that time, another bill will be needed to carve out a category for them and then they will have to be processed. So it could easily take another 4-5 years before you might get your GC. Also god only knows what kind of restrictions might be placed on the immigrants under this section and once you transfer under that category your existing GC processing will have to be canceled.
If you are in a stable job with limited promotions or raises, I agree the traditional GC route is better if you can make it through. For my career, I would rather have the added flexibility for six years. I do agree it could be very slow though and it is a small extra risk. In my case, I have the option of returning to another visa category if the GC processing didn't work out in the end.
If you are in a stable job with limited promotions or raises, I agree the traditional GC route is better if you can make it through. For my career, I would rather have the added flexibility for six years. I do agree it could be very slow though and it is a small extra risk. In my case, I have the option of returning to another visa category if the GC processing didn't work out in the end.
more...
illusions
04-21 02:42 PM
I got the Card Production Ordered e-mail today. No LUD even last night at 1 Am. Only one LUD today. My case is processed at Texas service center. And my receipt date is not with in their processing times.
Good luck to everyone.
Congrats on your approval. I have seen many approvals where the processing time doesn't match and i'm not sure if it's the case that they don't update it or they just process it randomly once the PD becomes current - anybody's guess i would think.
Good luck to everyone.
Congrats on your approval. I have seen many approvals where the processing time doesn't match and i'm not sure if it's the case that they don't update it or they just process it randomly once the PD becomes current - anybody's guess i would think.
2010 makeup Long Hairstyles For
nashim
09-03 09:01 AM
Yes, medical forms been changed. Please refer USCIS site for correct form. It is valid for one year but form should be correct.
Here are the details:
http://immigration-law.com/
07/13/2008: USCIS Changes Old Medical Form, I-693, Invalid Date from 07/14/2008 to 08/01/2008
� Medical form which the USCIS designated civil surgeon is required to use was initially revised on 04/08/2008, followed by the USCIS announcement that any I-693 form version earlier than 04/08/2008 should not be used by the civil surgens from May 1, 2008. In the middle of June, the USCIS released again new version form dated 06/05/2008 and announced that the old version other than 06/05/2008 should not be used effective 07/14/2008. July 14, 2008 is tomorrow. However, without a news release, the USCIS form site extended invalid date of forms earlier than 06/05/2008 to 08/01/2008. Please now note that "Previous editions will be accepted only for medical exams conducted before August 1, 2008. Medical exams conducted on or after August 1, 2008, require use of the 06/05/08 edition," according to the form site instruction.
� There was a confusion in June 2008 on the validity of older version form I-9 because the USCIS form site instructed that the older version was not acceptable from certain date. In Vancouver, the USCIS authority confirmed that the form instruction was an error and the USCIS form instruction has since been corrected. It will help tremendously if the USCIS releases an announcement that the current I-693 form instruction is indeed correct and the civil surgeons can use the I-693 forms which are older than 06/05/2008 version can still be used. In the meantime, the civil surgeons and the immigrants should check on the date of the medical examination with the I-693 form site to protect themselves from any changes. The form site indicates that the information was updated on June 26, 2008. One wonders whether the civil surgeons may be better off to start using the 06/05/2008 version form from even now just to avoid any confusion in the future. For the new form instruction as of today, please click here.
� There was a report one time that the USCIS was experiencing a problem in notifying all the USCIS certified civil surgeons on the form changes by email or other means because some civil surgeons did not have email addresses or proper means to receive such notices quickly. When the 2008 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons was implemented by the Center for Disease Control and Prevension of HHS in such a notice on May 1, 2008, it could have been practically impossible for the USCIS to notify such medical form changes timely to every single USCIS certified civil surgeons. Well, doctors, you now have until August 1, 2008 to comply with the new medical form!
� This change can be important that because of the EB-2 visa number progression for the Chinese and Indians, a large number of these foreign professionals must have already scheduled or even completed a medical examination for themselves and their family members using the older versions. Under the new instruction, these medical report should be valid and filed with the I-485 coming August 2008. However, those who schedule their 485 medical examination on or after August 1, 2008 should make it sure that the doctor uses the new version dated 06/05/2008.
Here are the details:
http://immigration-law.com/
07/13/2008: USCIS Changes Old Medical Form, I-693, Invalid Date from 07/14/2008 to 08/01/2008
� Medical form which the USCIS designated civil surgeon is required to use was initially revised on 04/08/2008, followed by the USCIS announcement that any I-693 form version earlier than 04/08/2008 should not be used by the civil surgens from May 1, 2008. In the middle of June, the USCIS released again new version form dated 06/05/2008 and announced that the old version other than 06/05/2008 should not be used effective 07/14/2008. July 14, 2008 is tomorrow. However, without a news release, the USCIS form site extended invalid date of forms earlier than 06/05/2008 to 08/01/2008. Please now note that "Previous editions will be accepted only for medical exams conducted before August 1, 2008. Medical exams conducted on or after August 1, 2008, require use of the 06/05/08 edition," according to the form site instruction.
� There was a confusion in June 2008 on the validity of older version form I-9 because the USCIS form site instructed that the older version was not acceptable from certain date. In Vancouver, the USCIS authority confirmed that the form instruction was an error and the USCIS form instruction has since been corrected. It will help tremendously if the USCIS releases an announcement that the current I-693 form instruction is indeed correct and the civil surgeons can use the I-693 forms which are older than 06/05/2008 version can still be used. In the meantime, the civil surgeons and the immigrants should check on the date of the medical examination with the I-693 form site to protect themselves from any changes. The form site indicates that the information was updated on June 26, 2008. One wonders whether the civil surgeons may be better off to start using the 06/05/2008 version form from even now just to avoid any confusion in the future. For the new form instruction as of today, please click here.
� There was a report one time that the USCIS was experiencing a problem in notifying all the USCIS certified civil surgeons on the form changes by email or other means because some civil surgeons did not have email addresses or proper means to receive such notices quickly. When the 2008 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons was implemented by the Center for Disease Control and Prevension of HHS in such a notice on May 1, 2008, it could have been practically impossible for the USCIS to notify such medical form changes timely to every single USCIS certified civil surgeons. Well, doctors, you now have until August 1, 2008 to comply with the new medical form!
� This change can be important that because of the EB-2 visa number progression for the Chinese and Indians, a large number of these foreign professionals must have already scheduled or even completed a medical examination for themselves and their family members using the older versions. Under the new instruction, these medical report should be valid and filed with the I-485 coming August 2008. However, those who schedule their 485 medical examination on or after August 1, 2008 should make it sure that the doctor uses the new version dated 06/05/2008.
more...
glus
03-19 11:31 AM
GC is for future employment but I-140 is not GC. I-485 is Adjustment of status to Permanent resident (GC).
If you leave the company prior I-140 approval. I-140, I-485, EAD & AP are canceled.
If your I-140 is approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days, then and only then, you can switch company using AC21 while still keeping your I-485 pending.
Mind you, I-140 is not your application, it is employers!
See my previous statement. There is nothing in the law that states one needs to 'work' for a company when I140 is being processed. Period.
If you leave the company prior I-140 approval. I-140, I-485, EAD & AP are canceled.
If your I-140 is approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days, then and only then, you can switch company using AC21 while still keeping your I-485 pending.
Mind you, I-140 is not your application, it is employers!
See my previous statement. There is nothing in the law that states one needs to 'work' for a company when I140 is being processed. Period.
hair short haircuts for round faces
chanduv23
03-16 08:55 AM
hopein07........do you know if one has to pass the evaluating exam first to get a Statement of Need from Canada for j1?...
Whats is the connection between "J1 Visa" and Canada?
Whats is the connection between "J1 Visa" and Canada?
more...
Becks
08-16 05:51 PM
I had my PA DL renewed last year. All they asked was the original I-485 receipt, Passport. They dont consider EADs.
hot Hair Style Round Face 2011
zephyrr
07-16 11:51 PM
my attorney did not ask for w2 or tax return, my company uses berry, appleman and leiden, usabal.com
wonder why different attorneys have different requirements
wonder why different attorneys have different requirements
more...
house long haircuts for round faces
Hewa
10-13 02:54 PM
Be decent. Look good.
I've been there with a shirt and jeans, sometime shirt and trouser.
But never a tie.
I've been there with a shirt and jeans, sometime shirt and trouser.
But never a tie.
tattoo long haircuts for round faces
Jerrome
11-08 12:51 PM
It includes all the AOS i.e Family Based, EB etc... Right
more...
pictures Long length hairstyles include
gconmymind
09-29 03:35 PM
I also have soft LUD on 09/26 and 09/29...But i dont know what to read into it.
Hope there are a few more approvals today and tomorrow before dates retrogress...
Hope there are a few more approvals today and tomorrow before dates retrogress...
dresses Round Face Hairstyles
go_guy123
01-20 11:32 AM
(1) Would CHC will vote yes on health care without any coverage for illegal and since CIR may not happen
(2) If CIR fails why would CHC supports us in piecemeal..
to me if no CIR then no piecemeal..
Answer to 2)
CHC only wants amnesty for illegals. They don't care about skilled immigration.
They hold the SKIL etc hostage to CIR. But CIR is impossible.
CHC will never support on piecemeal. But as Democratic party loses power , CHC power also reduces.
Moreover the CIR coalition also weakens with failures.
(2) If CIR fails why would CHC supports us in piecemeal..
to me if no CIR then no piecemeal..
Answer to 2)
CHC only wants amnesty for illegals. They don't care about skilled immigration.
They hold the SKIL etc hostage to CIR. But CIR is impossible.
CHC will never support on piecemeal. But as Democratic party loses power , CHC power also reduces.
Moreover the CIR coalition also weakens with failures.
more...
makeup long haircuts for round faces
frostrated
10-27 12:47 PM
...if ppl were sitting back and relaxing after seeing the first report on the USCIS website regarding the 485 numbers. But at least the starter of this thread is an exception to that.If the USCIS dozn't update that doc monthly just like they do with the visa bulletin then something is really fishy and they'd end up fooling us again like they always do.
BUT THIS TIME WE MUST FIGHT THIS. I really feel that we have a valid reason to.Count me in...I'm not sure how v shud start (class action lawsuit)...IV moderators any ideas/plans to ask for updated reports if the USCIS fails to provide the public with this info???
USCIS mentioned that they would update the numbers on a quarterly basis, not monthly. And given the end of FY 2009, I am thinking that they will need a little more time to bring the new one out. So I am thinking that they will publish the new numbers either in November or December.
BUT THIS TIME WE MUST FIGHT THIS. I really feel that we have a valid reason to.Count me in...I'm not sure how v shud start (class action lawsuit)...IV moderators any ideas/plans to ask for updated reports if the USCIS fails to provide the public with this info???
USCIS mentioned that they would update the numbers on a quarterly basis, not monthly. And given the end of FY 2009, I am thinking that they will need a little more time to bring the new one out. So I am thinking that they will publish the new numbers either in November or December.
girlfriend 2011 Women Round Face Haircut
CCC
07-05 02:19 PM
Hello,
I am in desparate need of some advice. I have an approved I-140 (11/28/2006) and my 485 was filed under my wife's GC application in June 07. I would like to leave my current company A and join another company B asap. I have 3 days to accept the offer.
a. Is it possible for me to port my I-140 to company B?
b. If its possible will i be able to keep the PD?
I did some research on the AC21 act and it seems that its ok to move companies after 180 days of getting the EAD card. But I could not figure out if the I-140 could also be ported over to company B.
Thanks in advance.
I am in desparate need of some advice. I have an approved I-140 (11/28/2006) and my 485 was filed under my wife's GC application in June 07. I would like to leave my current company A and join another company B asap. I have 3 days to accept the offer.
a. Is it possible for me to port my I-140 to company B?
b. If its possible will i be able to keep the PD?
I did some research on the AC21 act and it seems that its ok to move companies after 180 days of getting the EAD card. But I could not figure out if the I-140 could also be ported over to company B.
Thanks in advance.
hairstyles Long hairstyles naturally
thomachan72
07-20 03:32 PM
Hi John, thanks for bringing this to the attention of our members. Lets hope everybody finds time to call Sen Cornyn to thank him for introducing this bill. Another thing I wanted to say is that, our members are all busy with 485 filing and stuff so we can expect a response only after the 17th of August when the excitement of 485 filing is over. Even though it was defeated it doesn't seem to be a very hated idea by the majority since 5 more votes would have made it safe. So there still seems to be a positive factor lingering around for us the "legal immigrants". Hope we are able to capitalize on it soon. IV is infact becomming stronger and more influential thanks to the dedicated efforts of the leader and the members. Pls keep up the spirit for all of us. We need vigilant people like you to do the work to spot opportunities and failures for the community. Thanks.
paskal
12-20 11:10 PM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
ruchigup
08-22 04:17 PM
Why do u need them for gc ? Your 485 is already pending.
Right now Baker McKenzie represent my I-485 case. After I am no longer with my current employer, I need to file G-28 to change my attorney representation.
Right now Baker McKenzie represent my I-485 case. After I am no longer with my current employer, I need to file G-28 to change my attorney representation.
No comments:
Post a Comment