updown
10-16 11:09 PM
I would really appreciate it, if someone could give me some advice.
Here is my situation, in January 2005, I married my girlfriend, who I had dated for little over a year. She is a US born citizen, so we decided to file for my permanent residency upon marriage. Upon receipt of my Green Card in Jan 2008, I filed for naturalization. Our relationship started heading south last year. We tried counseling and it didn't work out. We finally decided to part our ways amicably in Sep, 2009.
I am 34 years old and for reasons unknown to me, I am showing signs of age. I have been also getting some pressure from my family in India to remarry. Though I do not have any plans to marry immediately, I wasn't sure if my getting naturalized in February 2009 would have any impact on marrying someone from India sometime next year?
Please let me know, if there are any cooling off period required?
Thank you.
Here is my situation, in January 2005, I married my girlfriend, who I had dated for little over a year. She is a US born citizen, so we decided to file for my permanent residency upon marriage. Upon receipt of my Green Card in Jan 2008, I filed for naturalization. Our relationship started heading south last year. We tried counseling and it didn't work out. We finally decided to part our ways amicably in Sep, 2009.
I am 34 years old and for reasons unknown to me, I am showing signs of age. I have been also getting some pressure from my family in India to remarry. Though I do not have any plans to marry immediately, I wasn't sure if my getting naturalized in February 2009 would have any impact on marrying someone from India sometime next year?
Please let me know, if there are any cooling off period required?
Thank you.
wallpaper Tea Cup Yorkies For Free
k3GC
07-02 12:16 PM
How come a govt. organization that is never known to do things on time, all of sudden is able to approve 60000 GCs in such a short period ? Why did they have to do it by end of June ? If they had done that by end of July would anything have been different for the folks who were getting the Green Cards - NO.
I think this was all planned. There was a reason why the numbers were made current and there is a reason why the numbers became unavailable.
I think we should get to the bottom of this. This stinks ......
I think this was all planned. There was a reason why the numbers were made current and there is a reason why the numbers became unavailable.
I think we should get to the bottom of this. This stinks ......
number30
10-06 02:15 PM
Hi Friends,
My AP is expering next month(NOV), I don't have any travel plans for next 1 year. i'm planing to apply in 2010 not now.
do i need to apply for extesion for evey year, if don't need also?
thks
There is no AP renewal. You can apply AP later if you are not planning to travel. But AP is for travel during emergencies. It takes time to get the AP approval. Hence people keep it current all the time.
My AP is expering next month(NOV), I don't have any travel plans for next 1 year. i'm planing to apply in 2010 not now.
do i need to apply for extesion for evey year, if don't need also?
thks
There is no AP renewal. You can apply AP later if you are not planning to travel. But AP is for travel during emergencies. It takes time to get the AP approval. Hence people keep it current all the time.
2011 Adult Yorkies
gxr
02-13 01:10 PM
My EAD and AP have the wrong birth date and I just noticed it. I have to re-send form I-765 and I-131 with the original EAD and original AP for correction. My case was originally filed in NSC along with 485, but I live in Texas.
But, as per instructions for I-765 and I-131, form should be filed at:
"Service Center with jurisdiction over your residence or Local Office - depending on where your case is pending."
Can someone guide me please ? Where should I file - TSC of NSC ?
thanks,
gxr
But, as per instructions for I-765 and I-131, form should be filed at:
"Service Center with jurisdiction over your residence or Local Office - depending on where your case is pending."
Can someone guide me please ? Where should I file - TSC of NSC ?
thanks,
gxr
more...
sac-r-ten
12-23 12:12 PM
ironically silent follower became vocal after the wait-is-over.
congrats buddy. i think you should wait for few more days, the way USCIS works you might have your Cards and then a welcome notice following it. LOL.
enjoy the holidays....
congrats buddy. i think you should wait for few more days, the way USCIS works you might have your Cards and then a welcome notice following it. LOL.
enjoy the holidays....
YUEN
03-13 12:28 AM
Anyone know? Pls advice, Thank you.
more...
Joppe
05-13 04:09 PM
Thats real nice.. and soft .. Like it :thumb:
2010 YORKIES and YORKIE POOS!
sameern
07-12 03:38 PM
Hello all, with the August bulletin showing June 06 cut-off dates, I have the following questions for which I seek input form IV members.
1. Is it possible to apply for the GC, the second time, if one cancels his GC "without prejudice"?
2. If yes, is it possible to use the priority date of the canceled GC in the second GC application?
3. What are the points one should be aware in canceling GC "without prejudice"?
Thanks for your time in providing your inputs.
1. Is it possible to apply for the GC, the second time, if one cancels his GC "without prejudice"?
2. If yes, is it possible to use the priority date of the canceled GC in the second GC application?
3. What are the points one should be aware in canceling GC "without prejudice"?
Thanks for your time in providing your inputs.
more...
surabhi
10-24 05:01 PM
Hi
I am July 2 Filer and got the checks cashed on October 11. The USCIS mailed receipts on October 15 and I received them on October 18th.
Because of high speed winds, my mail box got opened ( unsecured on a single family home) and much of the mail got swept away. I scouted the neighbourhood and recovered all but one receipt notice.
One doubt nagging me is if I had lost any FP notice on that day.
What has been the general wait time to get FP notices from the day the checks were cashed / receipts receieved ? I know it depends on how busy the ASCs are, so particularly interested hearing from Chicago area.
Is there anything I can do from my side to know if I indeed got a FP notice?
Thanks
I am July 2 Filer and got the checks cashed on October 11. The USCIS mailed receipts on October 15 and I received them on October 18th.
Because of high speed winds, my mail box got opened ( unsecured on a single family home) and much of the mail got swept away. I scouted the neighbourhood and recovered all but one receipt notice.
One doubt nagging me is if I had lost any FP notice on that day.
What has been the general wait time to get FP notices from the day the checks were cashed / receipts receieved ? I know it depends on how busy the ASCs are, so particularly interested hearing from Chicago area.
Is there anything I can do from my side to know if I indeed got a FP notice?
Thanks
hair yorkies and the yorkshire
pomosideshow
03-22 03:38 PM
From My webcomic (http://www.postmodernsideshow.com/category/comics/) [postmodernsideshow.com]
Drawn by hand on a wacom enabled laptop in ps and then vectorized in ai.
Ignore the mysterious thumb pinky on my right hand.
I've lost weight since the drawing, but I still draw myself with the paunch.
http://www.postmodernsideshow.com/comics/2008-05-26-gc0097-baby-food-shame.png
Drawn by hand on a wacom enabled laptop in ps and then vectorized in ai.
Ignore the mysterious thumb pinky on my right hand.
I've lost weight since the drawing, but I still draw myself with the paunch.
http://www.postmodernsideshow.com/comics/2008-05-26-gc0097-baby-food-shame.png
more...
GCStatus
09-08 01:55 AM
Hello Everybody,
Has anybody gone to Chennai US Consulate for H-1b revalidation lately?
Please share your experiences as I am planning to go and get my visa stamped this month.
Please advice.
I have been there few yrs ago. It was very smooth as long as you have all the papers
Has anybody gone to Chennai US Consulate for H-1b revalidation lately?
Please share your experiences as I am planning to go and get my visa stamped this month.
Please advice.
I have been there few yrs ago. It was very smooth as long as you have all the papers
hot Yorkies For Free Adoption.
Skelerex
07-14 01:14 PM
Well, I am a facebook fanatic!
http://a.imageshack.us/img202/9861/tdc10facebook.gif (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/tdc10facebook.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://a.imageshack.us/img202/9861/tdc10facebook.gif (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/tdc10facebook.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
more...
house Yorkies by Karen of
mirage
01-15 11:34 AM
Congresswoman Zoe Logfren & & senator John Cornyn are supporters of legal immigration, they have always come forward to help the legal immigrant community. I guess it is high time people from California & Texas write & call to their offices and complaint about USCIS/DOS action of not releazing and statistics on I-485 applications pending invarious categories. We are blind folded by these Visa bulletins with no idea of what there for EB-3, EB-2 India, China etc. we don't know how many people are ahead of us what to do next. All this will resolve it USCIS/DOS tells us how many applications they have pending from which country and which category....For that we need to call these lawmakers..
tattoo Yorkshire Terrier Puppies
gecceg
05-02 03:25 PM
Thanks
more...
pictures 2 yorkies and a shi tzu - ate
english_august
07-13 08:39 AM
the link is "http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/44667/immigrants-refused-green-cards-take-to-gandhigiri.html"
That link and many more are all here at
http://www.touchdownusa.org/floral/FloralProtest.html
You may want to close this thread to avoid duplicates.
That link and many more are all here at
http://www.touchdownusa.org/floral/FloralProtest.html
You may want to close this thread to avoid duplicates.
dresses Yorkies
gc_2006
07-01 12:47 AM
Hi,
I am filing the PERM application in EB2 Category. The position needs Bachelors + 5 Years (or) Masters + 1 year. I do have 30 months expereince after finishing my Bachelors degree and 11 months expereince after finishing my Masters degree.
Will I be eligible to file in EB2 as I have Masters degree and more than 12 months of expereince after Bachelors.
My questions is -- How do you count the expereince if its Masters + One year
Will you count one year after finishing the Master Degree completed (or)
Will you count one year after finishing the Bachelors Degree.
Thanks
gc2006
I am filing the PERM application in EB2 Category. The position needs Bachelors + 5 Years (or) Masters + 1 year. I do have 30 months expereince after finishing my Bachelors degree and 11 months expereince after finishing my Masters degree.
Will I be eligible to file in EB2 as I have Masters degree and more than 12 months of expereince after Bachelors.
My questions is -- How do you count the expereince if its Masters + One year
Will you count one year after finishing the Master Degree completed (or)
Will you count one year after finishing the Bachelors Degree.
Thanks
gc2006
more...
makeup Yorkies for sale - Silverton
dazed
03-18 06:59 PM
bump
girlfriend Yorkies for sale under our
Radiance
05-03 01:23 PM
Hey, I sent you an Application a few days ago
hairstyles year 713.515.9164 yorkies
Blog Feeds
12-09 09:10 AM
Some big compromises in the House version that dropped this morning. First, there will be $2525 in filing fees, $525 of which is due at the outset and $2000 of which is paid five years in to the ten year conditional non-immigrant period. That should presumably answer critics who complain that DREAM will add to the deficity. Also, conditional status is granted in two five year terms and the college education/military service requirements must be met in the first five year term in order to get the extension approved. Here is the new bill. HR6497
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/house-dream-act-includes-new-fee.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/house-dream-act-includes-new-fee.html)
Blog Feeds
12-06 09:00 AM
conservative columnist and former Bush speechwriter David Frum would like to see three more concessions on the DREAM Act to get conservatives to agree to the bill - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/middle-ground-on-dream.html: Here would be my three main suggestions: 1) Lower the age of entry into the US. Even the new versions of the law extend amnesty to people who entered the US up to age 16. That allows too many people who entered on their own impetus rather than as part of a family group � and too many people whose first language will never be English. I�d lower to 12, to...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/david-frum-water-down-dream-a-little-more-.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/david-frum-water-down-dream-a-little-more-.html)
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment