sayonara
12-10 12:24 PM
Hello,
I have recently moved and did an Address update for my I 485 online this weekend. I noticed that there are LUDs on my EAD and AP application (I did not do an address update for these as these applications are not pending, I have received both few months ago).
Did anyone else experience a similar issue?
P.S Admins - I tried searching for any similar posts but the verification image doesnt display on my browser and i couldnt get any results. Please feel free to move this thread around or redirect to an existing one.
Thanks in advance
I have recently moved and did an Address update for my I 485 online this weekend. I noticed that there are LUDs on my EAD and AP application (I did not do an address update for these as these applications are not pending, I have received both few months ago).
Did anyone else experience a similar issue?
P.S Admins - I tried searching for any similar posts but the verification image doesnt display on my browser and i couldnt get any results. Please feel free to move this thread around or redirect to an existing one.
Thanks in advance
wallpaper Get the best emo hair styles for emo kids.
natrajs
08-13 10:23 PM
My I - 140 was filed in TSC and approved and I-485 also sent to TSC
eastindia
04-20 01:39 PM
Can any attorneys help us?
2011 Trendy Stylish emo haircuts for girls 2010. Emo Hairstyles Girls. 2010 Emo
kiros79
03-22 01:49 PM
Hello everyone ! 13 years ago i was charge with Lanercy-theft wich it was a 2nd deg misdemeanor and possesion of cannabis under 20 grams 1st deg misdemeanor i plead guilty and served 3 days in county jail (Florida) , now i'm 32 married to an American citizen and getting ready to adjust my status , i just want to know how hard it"s going to be this whole process , i dont want to be dinied or deported , thanks for any answers.
more...
Macaca
06-22 06:55 AM
Senate Passes Energy Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html?hpid=topnews) Democrats Prevail; Mileage Standard Would Be Raised By Sholnn Freeman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sholnn+freeman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, June 22, 2007
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
rogerdepena
03-07 11:33 AM
I thought they were going to file it today? :confused:
more...
gc_dream07
02-24 03:37 PM
Admin,
I think we should block "yan3537kun48" in posting message? He just opened all the threads and type junk. He does not any profile data.
Thanks.
I think we should block "yan3537kun48" in posting message? He just opened all the threads and type junk. He does not any profile data.
Thanks.
2010 wallpaper Whether you are scene or emo, short emo haircuts boys. emo short
imhrb
07-15 06:36 PM
If it has been more than 90 days for the EAD renewal application and the EAD is about to expire, what can one do? I know they no longer give walk-in EADs. I have tried to contact them but no positive response. Any help would be appreciated.
more...
hebron
04-01 04:10 PM
Hi,
I have already filed my I-485 in Aug 2007. My employer is moving to a new office space in the same city. It is almost 2 miles from where I'm working now. Do I need to notify USCIS of this change? If so, how would I do it? Could anyone please suggest.
Thanks!
I have already filed my I-485 in Aug 2007. My employer is moving to a new office space in the same city. It is almost 2 miles from where I'm working now. Do I need to notify USCIS of this change? If so, how would I do it? Could anyone please suggest.
Thanks!
hair house Straight hair that is short short emo haircuts boys. emo hairstyles
seahawks
09-26 01:39 AM
we will discuss on the need to get this chapter active again. We need to come up with a plan on contacting law makers. All inputs are welcome.
more...
TheCanadian
09-21 03:20 PM
I can has grammar now?
hot emo median hairstyle
T-O
04-08 04:16 AM
Nintendo DS stamp :D C...c..c..c.c.c.crazy :P
more...
house 2011 emo short hair for guys. long short emo haircuts boys. emo hairstyles
ab3
04-14 01:52 PM
I have a question about filling out this section: PART 4, Processing Information. I am the employer and applying for a current H-1B holder (currently with another company) to transfer to my company AND extend his stay. He is currently here in the US.
Some people tell me I don't have to fill this section in, however the instructions say "if beneficiary...is outside the usa OR a requested extension of stay...cannot be granted, state US consulate or inspection facility you want notified".
What address should I put/consulate should I use (H-1B holder is from India).
Questions: 1) do i have to fill in all 1.a,b, c, and d?
2) does it matter if i check off consulate, pre-flight inspection, or port of entry?
3) if beneficiary doesn't have a fixed address in India anymore can I leave it blank?
Thank you for any help.
Some people tell me I don't have to fill this section in, however the instructions say "if beneficiary...is outside the usa OR a requested extension of stay...cannot be granted, state US consulate or inspection facility you want notified".
What address should I put/consulate should I use (H-1B holder is from India).
Questions: 1) do i have to fill in all 1.a,b, c, and d?
2) does it matter if i check off consulate, pre-flight inspection, or port of entry?
3) if beneficiary doesn't have a fixed address in India anymore can I leave it blank?
Thank you for any help.
tattoo images Cute Taylor Momsen Hairstyles Emo Hairstyles Brown And Blonde.
rkdownload
04-19 08:38 AM
I have been working as a consultant, due to the tight job market conditions I am not able to find my next contract in bay area, which was my current location when we filed I485 in Aug 2007. So, may be we got to relocate to other state say Texas. So, I was wondering what would be the impact of the move on our pending I485 applications after we change address using AR11 form. Should we avoid such move while I485 is pending?
Any Advice/Suggestions?
Thanks
Raj
Any Advice/Suggestions?
Thanks
Raj
more...
pictures hot Teen Girls Long Hairstyle
newtoh1
05-02 01:46 PM
My friend is on H1 and her husband's H1 extension denied after 6 th year.Can she add her husband to her H1?
Can a person stay in USA on H category continuosly more than 6 year??
Please respond immediately
Can a person stay in USA on H category continuosly more than 6 year??
Please respond immediately
dresses Blonde Emo Hairstyles Medium. pictures 2011 Cute Blonde Emo Hairstyles.2
clockwork
10-14 03:16 PM
Gurus,
I filed for AOS during July 2007 fiasco. I filed I-140 (Company A)concurrently with I-485. This concurrently filed I-140 got denied. I had another approved I-140 (Company B)from a different employer. My I-485 is still pending. Is there anyway to use AC-21 to reuse old approved I-140 for this pending I-485? Thanks for your valuable inputs.
Thanks -
I filed for AOS during July 2007 fiasco. I filed I-140 (Company A)concurrently with I-485. This concurrently filed I-140 got denied. I had another approved I-140 (Company B)from a different employer. My I-485 is still pending. Is there anyway to use AC-21 to reuse old approved I-140 for this pending I-485? Thanks for your valuable inputs.
Thanks -
more...
makeup Cool Emo Hairstyles latest in
.jpg "2011 emo short hair for guys. long short emo haircuts boys. emo hairstyles")
alterego
10-28 03:52 PM
Please leave a comment on the blog below this nice article in the USA today.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/industry/2007-10-28-techworkers_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/industry/2007-10-28-techworkers_N.htm
girlfriend Emo Hairstyles For Teenage
logiclife
03-07 11:35 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3396
hairstyles Short Emo Hairstyles Boys. oy
immm
07-18 03:35 PM
This is purely my opinion and may not be the best legal advice. If I were in the same situation, I would go by the EB type (EB2 first) and then by the priority dates. Whichever one is higher, I would apply both in that classification. If both I-140's are EB3 and same priority dates, I would go with the one with better job security (stable employer and job) and keep the other I-140 as backup. In this day and age of corporate acquisitions, mergers and bankruptcies and USCIS backlogs, you want to use the option with the least risk.
Blog Feeds
06-24 01:10 AM
Markos Moulitsas, the prominent left of center blogger, writes in the Hill:Once promising, the GOP�s designs on the Golden State governor�s mansion and Sen. Barbara Boxer�s seat are now running aground on a serious, self-imposed obstacle � the months of anti-immigrant rhetoric voiced by their candidates in this immigrant-rich state. Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman began the campaign as an immigration moderate, but veered to the right in order to win her party's nomination. �Let me be very clear: I am 100 percent against amnesty, no exceptions,� she said. �[U]ntil we actually do secure the border and actually stop illegal...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/kos-immigration-positions-will-cost-california-senate-and-governor-races.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/kos-immigration-positions-will-cost-california-senate-and-governor-races.html)
rvr_jcop
02-25 05:39 PM
Hi,
I had visited US for 6months in 2005 on H1B visa and currently my H1B is expired( Expired in Jun 2007). Now, I am in US on H4 visa. Can anyone please let me know is it possible to renew expired H1B now? If so, what is the procedure for the same?
Your help in this regard is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Nagaveni
That would have to be in the form of COS., and I think that counts towards the cap, am not 100% though.
I had visited US for 6months in 2005 on H1B visa and currently my H1B is expired( Expired in Jun 2007). Now, I am in US on H4 visa. Can anyone please let me know is it possible to renew expired H1B now? If so, what is the procedure for the same?
Your help in this regard is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Nagaveni
That would have to be in the form of COS., and I think that counts towards the cap, am not 100% though.
No comments:
Post a Comment