smarth
12-15 07:57 PM
Hi All,
My Green card Priority date is April 2004 under EB3 category.
I-140 was approved 1yr back and I-485 applied in August 2007.
Where to check the current processing dates and when will we receive Green card?
Any idea still howmuch time will it take to get GC for the people with above PD date?
Do i need to check the URL https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp?
Thanks in advance for clarification
My Green card Priority date is April 2004 under EB3 category.
I-140 was approved 1yr back and I-485 applied in August 2007.
Where to check the current processing dates and when will we receive Green card?
Any idea still howmuch time will it take to get GC for the people with above PD date?
Do i need to check the URL https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp?
Thanks in advance for clarification
wallpaper Dog and Cat Clip Art - Cat
veda
08-15 09:33 AM
Please post your commnets
pd_recapturing
07-09 09:24 PM
it might be a little bit tricky to find this out. Talk to IO about your 485 and ask her about 140 during the conversation. She might tell you the PD on that. Once, I successfully reconformed my PD by trying this way ( I have approval notice with me though).
2011 cat clipart illustrations
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...
LegalIndianInUSA
03-06 06:56 PM
Not sure if this document was discussed in the forums elsewhere. (If it was, please link it in this thread and close this thread)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/Immigrant%20Visa%20Control%20System_operation%20of .pdf
Does anyone understand what they mean by "Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience."
Does it mean that ppl file I485 at their own initiative (but thats not true since we cant file it until numbers are available), or does it mean that we should call USCIS and pester them and ask them "Is my application documentarily qualified ?"
Is that the same state as "preadjudicated" ?
Isnt it weird that AOS is the last group of people who get assigned numbers ? "CIS requests visa allotments for adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has been completed."
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/Immigrant%20Visa%20Control%20System_operation%20of .pdf
Does anyone understand what they mean by "Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience."
Does it mean that ppl file I485 at their own initiative (but thats not true since we cant file it until numbers are available), or does it mean that we should call USCIS and pester them and ask them "Is my application documentarily qualified ?"
Is that the same state as "preadjudicated" ?
Isnt it weird that AOS is the last group of people who get assigned numbers ? "CIS requests visa allotments for adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has been completed."
kirupa
11-02 09:42 PM
Added!
more...
sri2005_05
08-12 10:34 PM
Hi,
I would like to know can i change employer after my i-140 got approved.My i-140 got approved 6 months back and i have h1 until next year
I would like to know can i change employer after my i-140 got approved.My i-140 got approved 6 months back and i have h1 until next year
2010 Dog amp; Cat Clip Art
GreenCardVirus
01-27 04:59 PM
Though my main problem currently is Name Check, I am willing to help in any way I can.
more...
BZEANBOWY
05-03 05:07 PM
I have a approved I-360 (Batter Spouse Petition) and a pending I-485. However I got a letter in the mail stating the will revoke my 1-360 based on Section 204(a)(1) of the Immigration and nationality Act! It further states that I am not a person of Good Moral Character.
I was arrested in Belize my home country on November 19 2002 for Harm.Which would be Assault, and charged $100.00 and released.
This was not include in my initial application becausse it was outside the 3year period since my application was in 2007.
So I got the court documents and I am ready to submit it! but I am not sure if I shoudl seek legal advise or just submit the required document that they want!
They are asking for:
1.) Arrest Report.
2.)Copies of Cout documnet showing final disposition.
3.) relevan excerpts of the law for that jurisdiction showing Maximum possible penalty for each charge.
Please advise! is this something I should be feareful of?
I was arrested in Belize my home country on November 19 2002 for Harm.Which would be Assault, and charged $100.00 and released.
This was not include in my initial application becausse it was outside the 3year period since my application was in 2007.
So I got the court documents and I am ready to submit it! but I am not sure if I shoudl seek legal advise or just submit the required document that they want!
They are asking for:
1.) Arrest Report.
2.)Copies of Cout documnet showing final disposition.
3.) relevan excerpts of the law for that jurisdiction showing Maximum possible penalty for each charge.
Please advise! is this something I should be feareful of?
hair of a Dog And Cat By A Food
ras
02-02 10:45 PM
I have an Andvance Parole valid till Feb'10 end. However right now am in India and wish to stay back even after the AP expiry. In this scenario is it good to apply for renewal AP from India or is it advisable to return back to US and then apply for AP?
Does any one provide how much time it takes for the renewal if I apply for AP from India. Do I need to give the India address for delivery? I have some one in US who can recieve the AP by mail and can send it by post to India. Is this an advisable?
Does any one provide how much time it takes for the renewal if I apply for AP from India. Do I need to give the India address for delivery? I have some one in US who can recieve the AP by mail and can send it by post to India. Is this an advisable?
more...
karthikgk
07-08 04:47 PM
folks
I got my EAD last October (filed for my I-485 on July 02, '07) but did not apply for my AP then;
Now I need to apply for my EAD renewal and am also thinking of getting an AP. Do I need to get an AP for the current year (that is for the time period from Oct '07 to Oc 08) and then apply for AP extension or can I directly apply for AP for Oct '08 to Oct '09?
the second option will save me money and so for me that is the preferred one :D
any information on this is much appreciated,
thanks,
karthik
I got my EAD last October (filed for my I-485 on July 02, '07) but did not apply for my AP then;
Now I need to apply for my EAD renewal and am also thinking of getting an AP. Do I need to get an AP for the current year (that is for the time period from Oct '07 to Oc 08) and then apply for AP extension or can I directly apply for AP for Oct '08 to Oct '09?
the second option will save me money and so for me that is the preferred one :D
any information on this is much appreciated,
thanks,
karthik
hot Cat Silhouette clip art
kondalarv
03-20 01:20 PM
My wife is laid off and her company is going to cancel her H1B soon. h1 petition is getting expired on Oct,2009. now I am going to apply for COS to h4. If she wants get H1 status after one year can she use the same petition for H1 transfer?. or she has to apply a new H1?.
Can you please help me.
Can you please help me.
more...
house of a Brown Dog And Cat
sam_hoosier
01-21 03:58 PM
Hi,
I have got my EAD and want to do part time job as well as work on H1 for the employee who sponsored my GC, What is my status? I am still on H1 or AOS? I would be glad if someone can reply!
If you use your EAD (for part time or full time), you are on EAD and your H1B status is gone. It does not matter that you primary job is still on H1B.
I have got my EAD and want to do part time job as well as work on H1 for the employee who sponsored my GC, What is my status? I am still on H1 or AOS? I would be glad if someone can reply!
If you use your EAD (for part time or full time), you are on EAD and your H1B status is gone. It does not matter that you primary job is still on H1B.
tattoo Dog Clipart
Blog Feeds
06-15 09:20 AM
Welcome news from the US Travel Association: H.R. 2410, the "Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 2010-2011", includes a provision that authorizes the Secretary of State to conduct a two-year pilot program to use secure, remote videoconferencing technology to conduct tourist visa interviews. The travel industry introduced this idea to the government in its 2007 Blueprint to Discover America. "America's travel community is grateful to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership on this critical reform to America's visitor entry process," said Roger Dow, president and CEO of the U.S. Travel Association. "The...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/house-passes-bill-allowing-for-video-conferencing-interviews-at-us-consulates.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/house-passes-bill-allowing-for-video-conferencing-interviews-at-us-consulates.html)
more...
pictures Dog and Cat Clip Art. Free
sargon
10-20 09:01 PM
^^^^
dresses Cartoon Cat Sleeping
aa0406
01-30 11:44 AM
i got married with my husband right before he filed his i-485, so we can file it together. His i-485 recently got approved, mine is still pending since March 2007. After speaking with IO, I found out that my name check is pending. My name is not common, I had no interaction with a law agencies in any way. So, I suspect that name check is just an excuse.
My question is, can my marriage to my husband just before i-485 filing be a reason I am still waiting? Has anybody experienced something like this? I'm not from a country where arranged marriages are common practice and we have a child together.
My question is, can my marriage to my husband just before i-485 filing be a reason I am still waiting? Has anybody experienced something like this? I'm not from a country where arranged marriages are common practice and we have a child together.
more...
makeup dog clipart, embroidery, cat
Marigold
06-25 12:06 PM
Hi all.
Does anyone know if one can import a Poser file into Swift 3D, animate it, and export it as a vector-animated movie to Flash 5? It would be nice to see Poser characters move well in Flash without having to rely solely on Flash.
Does anyone know if one can import a Poser file into Swift 3D, animate it, and export it as a vector-animated movie to Flash 5? It would be nice to see Poser characters move well in Flash without having to rely solely on Flash.
girlfriend Dog Clipart
rskanth
07-05 03:14 PM
Yes, the AP is valid for one year and for as many visits as you want. Same thing happened with me. You can travel again with the stamped AP.
hairstyles Clipart Graphic middot; Dog and Cat
albnfsjia
10-04 11:37 AM
hi
i want to learn expression blend more!
i did not know some source that will help me in blend
i mean some source that teach by deeply .
i want to learn expression blend more!
i did not know some source that will help me in blend
i mean some source that teach by deeply .
imm_pro
12-16 04:28 PM
it should not take more than 2 weeks..
ewiebe
04-08 04:37 AM
Or like in:
http://www.mentor.com/products/embedded_software/multimedia/overview/inflexion-ui-demo-3d-cube-cd5396f1-df2a-40e3-9310-5d224ecba404
Or like in:
http://www.mentor.com/products/embedded_software/multimedia/overview/inflexion-ui-automotive-overview-demo-2cff76d1-9142-4720-a991-5cee92078318
http://www.mentor.com/products/embedded_software/multimedia/overview/inflexion-ui-demo-3d-cube-cd5396f1-df2a-40e3-9310-5d224ecba404
Or like in:
http://www.mentor.com/products/embedded_software/multimedia/overview/inflexion-ui-automotive-overview-demo-2cff76d1-9142-4720-a991-5cee92078318
No comments:
Post a Comment