Kapils573
10-17 05:37 PM
Hello everyone,
I had filed for my I485 on 19th July at Nebraska. My 90 days are getting over on 19th Oct. Still I have not received any receipts for I-485,EAD,I-131.
My lawyer is going to call USCIS to inquire about my case.
Does any one had experience calling USCIS after 90 days were over and the USCIS tracked your application and you got your receipts.
Would be great if any one can share there experiences.
Thanks,
Kapil
I had filed for my I485 on 19th July at Nebraska. My 90 days are getting over on 19th Oct. Still I have not received any receipts for I-485,EAD,I-131.
My lawyer is going to call USCIS to inquire about my case.
Does any one had experience calling USCIS after 90 days were over and the USCIS tracked your application and you got your receipts.
Would be great if any one can share there experiences.
Thanks,
Kapil
wallpaper Formal Hairstyles
Geni
05-31 09:56 PM
Hi,
My labor was denied first time through PERM(December 2005) and later after refiling, it got approve through PERM ( Applied on May 2006)
Now Can I use my first labor filing date as the priority date(Decmber 2005) or they will take the new date(May 2006).
I have I-140 Approved.
Thank you,
:confused:
My labor was denied first time through PERM(December 2005) and later after refiling, it got approve through PERM ( Applied on May 2006)
Now Can I use my first labor filing date as the priority date(Decmber 2005) or they will take the new date(May 2006).
I have I-140 Approved.
Thank you,
:confused:
johnnnnnyboy
05-19 07:13 AM
i know swift3d will import dxf files, which infini-d can export.
but is there anyway of getting animations (the movement over time parts) from infini-d to swift?
any help, much appreciated :)
[mac-os9 infin-d-4.5 swift3d-v2]
but is there anyway of getting animations (the movement over time parts) from infini-d to swift?
any help, much appreciated :)
[mac-os9 infin-d-4.5 swift3d-v2]
2011 miley cyrus hairstyles 2011
martinvisalaw
06-08 03:08 PM
The AP document should say that you can be paroled until ABC date. That is the expiration of the AP.
more...
madhavimorusu
01-15 04:02 PM
All,
I have my I140 approved under EB3 with the PD Aug'2003 with the employer A. Now I am planning to switch to employer B for filing Labor under EB2 category.
My question is Can I avail the PD i.e Aug'2003 got from the previous labor EB3 (i.s employer A) for the new EB2 labor with employer B.
My Exp: B.E + 8 Yrs of Progressive Exp.
Employer A:
labor : EB3 Approved PD AUG'2003
I140: Approved
Employer B:
labor: EB2 under process.
I would appreciate your reply, any attorneys pls.
I have my I140 approved under EB3 with the PD Aug'2003 with the employer A. Now I am planning to switch to employer B for filing Labor under EB2 category.
My question is Can I avail the PD i.e Aug'2003 got from the previous labor EB3 (i.s employer A) for the new EB2 labor with employer B.
My Exp: B.E + 8 Yrs of Progressive Exp.
Employer A:
labor : EB3 Approved PD AUG'2003
I140: Approved
Employer B:
labor: EB2 under process.
I would appreciate your reply, any attorneys pls.
jamesingham
06-06 03:15 PM
I hope these bills pass in Congress and give us badly needed relief .. Amen
more...
ameryki
12-19 07:54 PM
Hi All,
I am planning to r2i in the near future. EB-3 India (PD Nov 2005). I will be transfering with the same company that filed my GC to India. Is there anyway for me to keep my application alive?
I am planning to r2i in the near future. EB-3 India (PD Nov 2005). I will be transfering with the same company that filed my GC to India. Is there anyway for me to keep my application alive?
2010 Miley Cyrus Hairstyles Fashion
SpookyH1Alien
10-26 07:57 PM
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am planning to move back to India after I get the green card, possibly in the next 2-3 years. I really want the green card for my son (15 years old) who is very keen to come back to the US. If I take him to India to do his undergrad degree in India, will he be able to maintain his green card even if I am not present in US. I can give my brother's address (who lives in Chicago and is a green card holder) as my son's home in US. Will Rentry permit every 2 years for my son work? Or should I wait untill citizenship which seems to be too far considering my PD is nov 2007 EB2. Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
I am planning to move back to India after I get the green card, possibly in the next 2-3 years. I really want the green card for my son (15 years old) who is very keen to come back to the US. If I take him to India to do his undergrad degree in India, will he be able to maintain his green card even if I am not present in US. I can give my brother's address (who lives in Chicago and is a green card holder) as my son's home in US. Will Rentry permit every 2 years for my son work? Or should I wait untill citizenship which seems to be too far considering my PD is nov 2007 EB2. Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
more...
imh1b
05-19 09:41 AM
I like to read this Immigrant of the day post. It makes me feel proud of being an immigrant.
hair Miley Cyrus finds herself
siva008
03-29 06:58 AM
B
more...
Macaca
03-06 08:44 PM
Some paras from Testing Time for Democrats (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501185.html)
The story of the new Congress is actually two stories. Democratic leaders and their grass-roots supporters will decide in the coming days which narrative will prevail.
In January, Democrats dominated the news, the public agenda and the Republicans. In the last weeks of February, the Republicans came back -- not by offering grand proposals but by using the limited tools they have to prove that Democrats don't have enough power, yet, to end the war in Iraq.
When they took control, Democrats looked crisp and disciplined, attributes not normally associated with their party. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House quickly passed the Democrats' popular campaign promises, including measures on the minimum wage, stem cell research, renewable energy and reforms of the student loan and Medicare prescription drug programs.
This agenda had its skeptics, but it provided focus for a party long out of power and drew significant Republican defections, feeding a raft of "Republicans in Disarray" stories. Pelosi noted at a January news conference that so many Republicans voted for the Democratic proposals that one of her colleagues joked: "Maybe you made these bills too easy."
The Senate Democrats quickly pushed through a different version of the minimum-wage increase, and the party's leading foreign policy voices framed a critique of President Bush's Iraq policy that squared with the public's increasingly skeptical view of the war.
But recent weeks have held nothing but trouble for Democrats -- and it is odd, as one Democrat noted, that they should be on the defensive when the scandal over the treatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has focused attention on yet another failed aspect of the administration's execution of the war and its aftermath.
Instead, one news story after another has highlighted differences among congressional Democrats over how to end the war. There is also the divide between the Washington party and activists at the grass roots and in the blogosphere. All of these problems are rooted in two unalterable facts: Democrats, on the basis of their thin majorities in Congress, lack the numbers to force an unwilling president to alter his course. And they are short of votes to cut off funds for the war altogether.
My Comments
Dems are not united on most issues.
Although this article is on Iraq, a similar situation will occur on Immigration. The big difference is that Dems are very interested in Iraq (they won elections on Iraq) whereas I haven't seen much much Democratic interest on Immigration.
The story of the new Congress is actually two stories. Democratic leaders and their grass-roots supporters will decide in the coming days which narrative will prevail.
In January, Democrats dominated the news, the public agenda and the Republicans. In the last weeks of February, the Republicans came back -- not by offering grand proposals but by using the limited tools they have to prove that Democrats don't have enough power, yet, to end the war in Iraq.
When they took control, Democrats looked crisp and disciplined, attributes not normally associated with their party. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House quickly passed the Democrats' popular campaign promises, including measures on the minimum wage, stem cell research, renewable energy and reforms of the student loan and Medicare prescription drug programs.
This agenda had its skeptics, but it provided focus for a party long out of power and drew significant Republican defections, feeding a raft of "Republicans in Disarray" stories. Pelosi noted at a January news conference that so many Republicans voted for the Democratic proposals that one of her colleagues joked: "Maybe you made these bills too easy."
The Senate Democrats quickly pushed through a different version of the minimum-wage increase, and the party's leading foreign policy voices framed a critique of President Bush's Iraq policy that squared with the public's increasingly skeptical view of the war.
But recent weeks have held nothing but trouble for Democrats -- and it is odd, as one Democrat noted, that they should be on the defensive when the scandal over the treatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has focused attention on yet another failed aspect of the administration's execution of the war and its aftermath.
Instead, one news story after another has highlighted differences among congressional Democrats over how to end the war. There is also the divide between the Washington party and activists at the grass roots and in the blogosphere. All of these problems are rooted in two unalterable facts: Democrats, on the basis of their thin majorities in Congress, lack the numbers to force an unwilling president to alter his course. And they are short of votes to cut off funds for the war altogether.
My Comments
Dems are not united on most issues.
Although this article is on Iraq, a similar situation will occur on Immigration. The big difference is that Dems are very interested in Iraq (they won elections on Iraq) whereas I haven't seen much much Democratic interest on Immigration.
hot Formal Hairstyles
Macaca
12-02 09:18 AM
Business Lobby Presses Agenda Before �08 Vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/washington/02lobby.html?hp) By ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, December 2, 2007
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 � Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year�s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.
�There�s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,� said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. �Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.�
The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.
Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.
Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, �I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.�
At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs � standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.
Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.
At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with �the greens.�
A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate �the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.�
A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused �a staggering loss of work hours� as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was �very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.�
That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a �serious health condition� or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. �We want to get this done before the election,� Mr. Johnson said. �The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.�
Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been �enormously successful.� And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to �reclaim the American dream.�
Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, �Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.�
Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.
Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those �midnight regulations� were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.
Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.
The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that �emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health� because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.
Perdue Farms, one of the nation�s largest poultry producers, said that it was �essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,� and that a reporting requirement would place �an undue and useless burden� on farmers.
But environmental groups told the Bush administration that �ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.� And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.
On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for �safe, reliable and affordable electricity.�
But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be �the Bush administration�s parting gift to the utility industry.�
If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: �If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it�s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.�
Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. �It�s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership� or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.
Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: �Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They�ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.�
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 � Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year�s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.
�There�s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,� said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. �Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.�
The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.
Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.
Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, �I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.�
At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs � standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.
Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.
At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with �the greens.�
A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate �the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.�
A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused �a staggering loss of work hours� as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was �very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.�
That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a �serious health condition� or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. �We want to get this done before the election,� Mr. Johnson said. �The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.�
Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been �enormously successful.� And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to �reclaim the American dream.�
Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, �Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.�
Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.
Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those �midnight regulations� were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.
Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.
The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that �emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health� because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.
Perdue Farms, one of the nation�s largest poultry producers, said that it was �essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,� and that a reporting requirement would place �an undue and useless burden� on farmers.
But environmental groups told the Bush administration that �ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.� And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.
On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for �safe, reliable and affordable electricity.�
But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be �the Bush administration�s parting gift to the utility industry.�
If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: �If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it�s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.�
Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. �It�s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership� or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.
Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: �Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They�ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.�
more...
house hairstyles for winter formal
gcwait2007
05-01 03:00 PM
Congrats...
tattoo Miley Cyrus Prom Hairstyles
sertasheep
10-18 10:49 AM
Date/Time: Friday October 20, 2006 12:00 - 1:00 PM East Coast Time
Attorney: Sonal Mehta Verma from Nankin and Verma
Phone Number: 1-712-432-3000
Bridge Number: 153151
Range of Question IDs Covered: 71 through 100.
Conference Call Etiquette:
-We request you to put yourself on mute by pressing the following keys in succession ( 4 and *) to avoid ambient noise(breathing, background conversations, wind-noise, cellular phone static, traffic and other disturbance from your line).
- If you have a follow-up question to pose after the attorney provides a response, you can press 4* again to unmute your line. One follow-up question is permitted in real-time.
- If you have problems connecting into the call, please try after a few minutes.
Attorney: Sonal Mehta Verma from Nankin and Verma
Phone Number: 1-712-432-3000
Bridge Number: 153151
Range of Question IDs Covered: 71 through 100.
Conference Call Etiquette:
-We request you to put yourself on mute by pressing the following keys in succession ( 4 and *) to avoid ambient noise(breathing, background conversations, wind-noise, cellular phone static, traffic and other disturbance from your line).
- If you have a follow-up question to pose after the attorney provides a response, you can press 4* again to unmute your line. One follow-up question is permitted in real-time.
- If you have problems connecting into the call, please try after a few minutes.
more...
pictures miley cyrus style clothing.
nixstor
10-27 01:29 PM
Can you AC21 portability be used for more than one employer?
What if some one decides to stop working and go back to school?
What if some one decides to stop working and go back to school?
dresses Latest Women Formal celebrity
realist
10-26 11:18 AM
how much is it going for?
US can make a lot of money, if it holds an auction and invite all the gc applicants to bid :D
US can make a lot of money, if it holds an auction and invite all the gc applicants to bid :D
more...
makeup Picture of Miley Cyrus Hair
ronhira
10-05 12:07 AM
eat this grassley
Even as layoffs persist, good jobs go begging - Careers- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33166991/ns/business-careers/)
Even as layoffs persist, good jobs go begging - Careers- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33166991/ns/business-careers/)
girlfriend miley cyrus hairstyles.
waiting_4_gc
07-31 07:02 PM
Hello,
I am going to file my EAD and AP.I have older version of the forms.
But should i use older version or newer version?:confused:
I am going to file my EAD and AP.I have older version of the forms.
But should i use older version or newer version?:confused:
hairstyles miley cyrus, quinceaneara
vik123
02-14 03:16 PM
Read the House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr statement
http://judiciary.house.gov/OversightOpeningStatement.aspx?ID=89
http://judiciary.house.gov/OversightOpeningStatement.aspx?ID=89
kaisersose
10-02 11:40 AM
FP has nothing to do with the EAD or AP.
It is a security check as part of 485 processing where you are checked for a criminal background.
It is a security check as part of 485 processing where you are checked for a criminal background.
BAS1
November 27th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Hi everyone. I am not a Nikon owner but have a question for a friend. Can lenses currently used on a Nikon 6006 be used on the latest Nikon DSLRs?
Any information will be appreciated.
Bev
Any information will be appreciated.
Bev
No comments:
Post a Comment