saketkapur
02-28 10:39 AM
Hi
My wife who is currently working as a doctor in medically underserved area(J1 waiver case), on cap exempt H1B visa. Her clinic is contemplating name change. I will really appreciate if someone can shed the light on how might this proposed name change can/will impact her status?
Her visa is currently unstamped and we are planning to get the same done this year in october. My queries are as follows:
1. Will a new waiver petition and H1B visa need to be filed or only an addendum notification to the USCIS will suffice?
2. If the latter is true then what kind of additional documentation will be needed for visa stamping from the lawyer?
Attorney input will be highly appreciated.
regards
Saket Kapur
My wife who is currently working as a doctor in medically underserved area(J1 waiver case), on cap exempt H1B visa. Her clinic is contemplating name change. I will really appreciate if someone can shed the light on how might this proposed name change can/will impact her status?
Her visa is currently unstamped and we are planning to get the same done this year in october. My queries are as follows:
1. Will a new waiver petition and H1B visa need to be filed or only an addendum notification to the USCIS will suffice?
2. If the latter is true then what kind of additional documentation will be needed for visa stamping from the lawyer?
Attorney input will be highly appreciated.
regards
Saket Kapur
wallpaper men on forearm. tattoos
blacktongue
10-13 09:22 AM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Bloggings On Dysfunctional Government (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,1012-paparelli.shtm)
Check out questions for DOL and DHS
Does Senate answer questions posted on website of a lawyer?
When are the answers expected? Can someone find out from the lawyer. It is better for us to know the answers than the questions.
Check out questions for DOL and DHS
Does Senate answer questions posted on website of a lawyer?
When are the answers expected? Can someone find out from the lawyer. It is better for us to know the answers than the questions.
omeya
08-18 09:10 AM
Thanks txh1b.
2011 Tattoo Men Arm Arm tattoos are
RamaRay
12-28 03:45 PM
Hi , My wife is on h4 visa and I want to file H1B for her and she has It experience of 3 years .Please guide whats the procedure .
more...
novice123
03-05 07:58 PM
Gurus, can you shed some thoughts on these questions plzz!
aanakkoddan
07-06 06:27 PM
My LD 01/31/2003 I485 date 10/20/03 extending my EAD 4th time. Stuck in backlog center TX. Any one recently got from TX backlog?
more...
qtoask
06-20 12:06 PM
poll here : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5379
2010 Tribal Arm Tattoos For Men
chinta_ramesh
10-04 03:17 PM
I am going to complete 6 years on H1-B by 2009 March. When we applied for the H1-B Transfter to my current company last year for some reason I got the extension upto Jan 2010 which is more 6 yrs.
I was on L1 until 2004 Jan for 9 months in the begining and my previous company converted L1 to H1 in Jan 2004.
My question is do I need apply H1-B extension on approved I-140 to get 3 more years extension as 2010 Jan will be my 7th year on H1-B ? OR I can wait upto current transfered H1 - B approval validity?
Please advise.
I was on L1 until 2004 Jan for 9 months in the begining and my previous company converted L1 to H1 in Jan 2004.
My question is do I need apply H1-B extension on approved I-140 to get 3 more years extension as 2010 Jan will be my 7th year on H1-B ? OR I can wait upto current transfered H1 - B approval validity?
Please advise.
more...
paskal
07-21 10:59 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072100432.html
worth a read
if you are a physician or the spouse of a physician
please join the iv-physicians chapter to help advocacy efforts
worth a read
if you are a physician or the spouse of a physician
please join the iv-physicians chapter to help advocacy efforts
hair 2011 Arm tattoos for men seem
tanu_75
02-11 01:02 PM
Anyone has some information on my question..
What's the q? We can hardly make out what you are asking.
What's the q? We can hardly make out what you are asking.
more...
new_From_newyork
11-15 11:24 AM
When is my green card expected?
Please provide me an educative link regarding this EAD-Green card process.
I am new to immigration voice.
Thanks
Please provide me an educative link regarding this EAD-Green card process.
I am new to immigration voice.
Thanks
hot Tribal forearm tattoo designs
sanju_dba
11-18 02:50 PM
Hi All,
My agent says interest earned over the period is taxfree in otherwords, the maturity amount is all taxfree
Did anyone signed up and got your medicals done here?
Also I see this on their website....
Life Insurance Corporation of India (http://www.licindia.in/nri_centre.htm)
NON-RESIDENT INDIAN:
A non-resident Indian is a citizen of India temporarily residing in the country of his/her present residence and holding a valid passport issued by the Government of India.
NRI should not be a green card holder. He/She should not have applied for or planning to apply in the near future for acquiring citizenship of his /her present country of residence or any other country.
I am >35 so need medical exams done and attested by a MD Doctor. I and My agent has no clue where to get it done. Doctors here charge for those test and not sure if they would attest those papers.
My agent says interest earned over the period is taxfree in otherwords, the maturity amount is all taxfree
Did anyone signed up and got your medicals done here?
Also I see this on their website....
Life Insurance Corporation of India (http://www.licindia.in/nri_centre.htm)
NON-RESIDENT INDIAN:
A non-resident Indian is a citizen of India temporarily residing in the country of his/her present residence and holding a valid passport issued by the Government of India.
NRI should not be a green card holder. He/She should not have applied for or planning to apply in the near future for acquiring citizenship of his /her present country of residence or any other country.
I am >35 so need medical exams done and attested by a MD Doctor. I and My agent has no clue where to get it done. Doctors here charge for those test and not sure if they would attest those papers.
more...
house tribal tattoos for men on arm.
muralip
10-10 11:04 AM
Hi,
Can anymore list down what are the documents required to show up at USCIS for Finger Printing.
Regards,
Murali
Can anymore list down what are the documents required to show up at USCIS for Finger Printing.
Regards,
Murali
tattoo arm tattoos for men .
wtlloyd
March 7th, 2004, 11:18 PM
B53,000
300D B 44,000
so the D70's a bit more expensive.
1USD = 39B
39 baht to the dollar! when did that happen?!!!
(JK, I was in Thailand back in '76 and it was I think 23 to $1)
It was an interesting place to celebrate turning 21 with your best friend.....
300D B 44,000
so the D70's a bit more expensive.
1USD = 39B
39 baht to the dollar! when did that happen?!!!
(JK, I was in Thailand back in '76 and it was I think 23 to $1)
It was an interesting place to celebrate turning 21 with your best friend.....
more...
pictures arm tattoo
vsc
01-23 02:19 PM
Hi
presently i am working on h1b for a tech company. I also have my ead (obtained as a result of july 07 fiasco).
Can i start a company, incorporate a llc or a class c company on my ead? What would be my options?
i know that if i had solely my h1b, i could start a class c company but not work for it(use a gc or a citizen) to do it
my question is that can i still continue on my status quo--ie use h1 for my employer and use ead to start a company, or i have to give up my h1 status? since my wife is on h4, i have to continue on h1b until she gets her ead.
thanks!
presently i am working on h1b for a tech company. I also have my ead (obtained as a result of july 07 fiasco).
Can i start a company, incorporate a llc or a class c company on my ead? What would be my options?
i know that if i had solely my h1b, i could start a class c company but not work for it(use a gc or a citizen) to do it
my question is that can i still continue on my status quo--ie use h1 for my employer and use ead to start a company, or i have to give up my h1 status? since my wife is on h4, i have to continue on h1b until she gets her ead.
thanks!
dresses Tribal tattoos for men on arm.
fatjoe
10-30 08:45 AM
I am not sure what is so important in this to answer.
As long as thay had sent the finger prints to you, you should be OK. There is no particular pattern in which they send the EAD cards. So, no body can answer your question about when will you get the EAD. Just pray and watch. If it is more than 90 days since you have applied for your EAD, then you may contact your local office to expedite the process.
As long as thay had sent the finger prints to you, you should be OK. There is no particular pattern in which they send the EAD cards. So, no body can answer your question about when will you get the EAD. Just pray and watch. If it is more than 90 days since you have applied for your EAD, then you may contact your local office to expedite the process.
more...
makeup tribal sleeve tattoos for men.
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
girlfriend Tattoos On Forearm For Men.
Puncher
November 9th, 2005, 04:52 PM
Often it is written on the lens (on the front), as part of the whole labeling there. Also the box/documentation of the lens should have that information. If you don't have that, you should be able to find that info on the Internet/manufacturer's homepage. Of course you could also try measuring, but you have to be relatively exact there.
From which lens do you want to know the thread size?
From which lens do you want to know the thread size?