gapala
05-06 09:09 PM
Sorry to hear about that dude!
Did they book any charges against you?
Where did this happen? What did they say when they left?
Do you have officer's names/contact number?
One thing you could do is that you can write to Senators and Governer about this and also the Media Reporters.
Talk to a lawyer as well if you are mentally worried about this.
Did they book any charges against you?
Where did this happen? What did they say when they left?
Do you have officer's names/contact number?
One thing you could do is that you can write to Senators and Governer about this and also the Media Reporters.
Talk to a lawyer as well if you are mentally worried about this.
wallpaper Sú skôr sklamaní z toho,
yabadaba
07-13 11:15 AM
it will look like the WaMu ad. buncha ppl in suits behind a baricade.
http://www.randomculture.com/random_culture/images/trappedbanker.jpg
wear white shits and jeans..standard protest outfit
dont get carried away...follow the organizers...admin delete this thread.
http://www.randomculture.com/random_culture/images/trappedbanker.jpg
wear white shits and jeans..standard protest outfit
dont get carried away...follow the organizers...admin delete this thread.
miami75
07-03 11:47 PM
In Miami, as my nickname
2011 sklamanie v láske.
xbohdpukc
03-26 04:24 PM
Don't listen to those who would tell you that you need 5 years after your degree was awarded. TALK TO A FREAKING LAWYER.
more...
Karthikthiru
11-09 05:03 PM
Just completed
rjgleason
March 15th, 2004, 05:26 AM
No...........I'm going to wait until the next generation camera phones come out........rumor has it the developers are going to include a 70-200 2.8 L IS
with the ability to interchange with several other lenses not yet in development.
with the ability to interchange with several other lenses not yet in development.
more...
ruchigup
08-22 03:22 PM
As stated earlier go for your own lawyer.
New employer has Fragomen and I heard there is lot of negative air about their procedures on PERM. Current employer legal firm is Baker McKenzie.
I am kind of reluctant to have Fragomen as my attorney representation
__________________
Can I have some recommendations for good attorney?
New employer has Fragomen and I heard there is lot of negative air about their procedures on PERM. Current employer legal firm is Baker McKenzie.
I am kind of reluctant to have Fragomen as my attorney representation
__________________
Can I have some recommendations for good attorney?
2010 sklamanie v laska. sklamania,
sankap
08-13 10:39 AM
Can you share how you can check your status online after you've filed I-485? Who would send you the URL --your immi lawyer or the USCIS? Also, my lawyers filed said they filed my 485, AP, EAD the same day. Is that possible?
more...
thomachan72
05-10 09:42 AM
I am curious to know if people are sending amounts >20K by wire transfer to India or other countries from the US. People who do that regularly or have done that in past, have you encountered any problems? Wire transfers are directly informed by the bank to the IRS and you do not have to do it personally right?
Comments from those who have done this before is appreciated.
Comments from those who have done this before is appreciated.
hair ale aj veľké sklamania,
waitingnwaiting
01-25 09:51 PM
Can he add an amendment to divide spillover equally between EB2 and EB3 India. This will help a lot.
more...
raysaikat
01-06 03:33 PM
Sincerest thanks for the information. Iam looking at criteria 1 to 10 in the list that you have provided. I believe that I can gather evidence to satisfy 2 criteria�s completely and maybe 1 partially, does that suffice or there is a rule that atleast say 4 / 10 or X / 10 should be satisfied as a minimum. Most of the criteria�s are actually meant for distinguished people in research, whereas my profile is more of an IT application developer / designer.
Please read the text in the USCIS page carefully. You need to clearly satisfy at least 3 criteria. In practice, you try to provide at least some evidence for most criteria.
Note also that you need to provide evidence of sustained fulfillment. E.g., suppose you want to show that
"Evidence that the alien has judged the work of others, either individually or on a panel;"
This is *not* satisfied, e.g., if you graded the papers of your students or did code-reviews! This is likely satisfied if you, e.g., were in an IEEE standards committee (especially if the standard becomes well known, e.g., IEEE 802.11, or Firewire, etc.). Similarly, if you just participated in a panel once, then the reviewer is likely to reject your claim; you really want to show that you regularly (e.g., once a month for last 3-4 years) participate in panels, etc. In my own case, I reviewed literally 100's of conference and journal papers, and was in the TPC of many conferences, and also participated in an NSF panel for reviewing proposals for funding.
The reviewer will want evidence for each criteria. Sometimes you may be able to use the same evidence towards more than one criteria, but generally it is not the case.
Finally remember that you need *very strong* recommendation letters from "well known" people *all over the world". Most people gets some letters from US, some from their home country, some from Europe, other countries, etc. I had about 10-15 letters from US, China, India, Netherlands, etc. The letter writer in each case must be very well known, and must hold a very high position (e.g., one of my letter writer was one of the heads of Philips research).
In any case, it does not matter what I or someone else thinks about your qualifications. What matters is what the reviewer of your petition thinks. What I would suggest is that if you feel that you have a good chance at EB1-A (e.g., in your own mind you believe that you truly satisfy 3 criteria), then hire a good attorney and start working on preparing your dossier. The cost will be about $7000-$10,000 (depending upon what attorney you choose). Attorneys will charge much more for EB1 petitions since they actually have to work on it (rather than get a para-legal fill-in forms, as done in EB2 applications). It usually takes 4-6 months to get all material, etc.
Please read the text in the USCIS page carefully. You need to clearly satisfy at least 3 criteria. In practice, you try to provide at least some evidence for most criteria.
Note also that you need to provide evidence of sustained fulfillment. E.g., suppose you want to show that
"Evidence that the alien has judged the work of others, either individually or on a panel;"
This is *not* satisfied, e.g., if you graded the papers of your students or did code-reviews! This is likely satisfied if you, e.g., were in an IEEE standards committee (especially if the standard becomes well known, e.g., IEEE 802.11, or Firewire, etc.). Similarly, if you just participated in a panel once, then the reviewer is likely to reject your claim; you really want to show that you regularly (e.g., once a month for last 3-4 years) participate in panels, etc. In my own case, I reviewed literally 100's of conference and journal papers, and was in the TPC of many conferences, and also participated in an NSF panel for reviewing proposals for funding.
The reviewer will want evidence for each criteria. Sometimes you may be able to use the same evidence towards more than one criteria, but generally it is not the case.
Finally remember that you need *very strong* recommendation letters from "well known" people *all over the world". Most people gets some letters from US, some from their home country, some from Europe, other countries, etc. I had about 10-15 letters from US, China, India, Netherlands, etc. The letter writer in each case must be very well known, and must hold a very high position (e.g., one of my letter writer was one of the heads of Philips research).
In any case, it does not matter what I or someone else thinks about your qualifications. What matters is what the reviewer of your petition thinks. What I would suggest is that if you feel that you have a good chance at EB1-A (e.g., in your own mind you believe that you truly satisfy 3 criteria), then hire a good attorney and start working on preparing your dossier. The cost will be about $7000-$10,000 (depending upon what attorney you choose). Attorneys will charge much more for EB1 petitions since they actually have to work on it (rather than get a para-legal fill-in forms, as done in EB2 applications). It usually takes 4-6 months to get all material, etc.
hot laska sklamanie. quot;Som
ita
11-20 04:50 PM
My AP was approved for multiple trips. So I can use the 2 stamped AP as many times as I want. The officer told me that when I use the APs for my next trip then they are going stamp the same APs again. And that I will not need to submit anything on my next trip. It would be advisable to keep some photocopies of the AP just in case they ask for a copy.
How do you know AP is approved for multiple entries?
I thought AP in general is for multiple entries.
Is there a way to tell from your approval notice it your AP was approved for multiple times?
Thank you.
How do you know AP is approved for multiple entries?
I thought AP in general is for multiple entries.
Is there a way to tell from your approval notice it your AP was approved for multiple times?
Thank you.
more...
house Prestať veriť v lásku,
go_guy123
05-19 03:50 PM
I am not aginst the OP or generalizing the B1 abuse. I am stating my opinion of what could be the reason behind the denial. You know, now a days even people are getting 221g for the H4 stamping. It does not matter what visa you are going for, the US consulates just looking for a execuse to reject. Not only in India, there are lot of people getting 221g in Canada, and got stuck up there.
Exactly the point. Years of H1B and B1 abuse by IT consulting vendors have brought to this
state.
The case of DSK , IMF ex-chief proves one teh point. I go agree he is innocent until guilty.
But yes he had lots of problems with women in the past....and got away because all were in Europe.
US is different and what looks like a minor issue B1 sent to work like H1B eventually gets the spotlight and faces severe crackdown.
Exactly the point. Years of H1B and B1 abuse by IT consulting vendors have brought to this
state.
The case of DSK , IMF ex-chief proves one teh point. I go agree he is innocent until guilty.
But yes he had lots of problems with women in the past....and got away because all were in Europe.
US is different and what looks like a minor issue B1 sent to work like H1B eventually gets the spotlight and faces severe crackdown.
tattoo tattoo laska, sklamanie sklamanie v laska. laska sklamanie
prem_goel
12-02 11:25 PM
Just for updating everyone, I got my stamping done successfully at Tijuana. They give the passport next day as expected, so just make sure to make the arrangement for the night. It's pretty cool for H-1B people both for full-time plus contractors, albeit for contractors they sometimes will call/e-mail your employer to verify. It will usually happen in a day or two and they'll issue the visa then. Let me know if anyone wants any particular details on Tijuana/H-1B stamping there.
more...
pictures Najpútavejší príbeh lásky; laska sklamanie. lásky, túžby a sklamania
abhijitp
07-08 02:06 PM
I'm sorry but why he did not say IV... i'm not trying to offened anybody people from all over are sending as well. it would make it better if he said the legal immigrant community
Given that (I believe) he regularly visits IV and gets information from here, but never wants to give IV the credit for it.
Given that (I believe) he regularly visits IV and gets information from here, but never wants to give IV the credit for it.
dresses jej smútok zo sklamaní:
Steven-T
March 15th, 2004, 08:54 AM
Obviously we all love cameras, how many of you have or are considering getting a camera phone?
No, I am using a company cheap phone . . . No intension to buy my own phone. But a lot of my friends and relatives got one. This is just like the PDA. It's the fashion.
When I was in Philips Island watching pengiums in nature, no cameras are allowed. But the guy next to me are using a cell phone pretending talking to his friend, and snapping pictures . . .
Steven
No, I am using a company cheap phone . . . No intension to buy my own phone. But a lot of my friends and relatives got one. This is just like the PDA. It's the fashion.
When I was in Philips Island watching pengiums in nature, no cameras are allowed. But the guy next to me are using a cell phone pretending talking to his friend, and snapping pictures . . .
Steven
more...
makeup Sklamanie,Laska,Priatelstvo
smuggymba
04-21 12:46 PM
Friends,
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
PM me.
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
PM me.
girlfriend veľké sklamanie v láske
akr_roy
07-16 07:09 PM
Lets not count the chickens before they are hatched. Its entirely plausible that if anything favourable comes up, its due to combined efforts. Lets not fight out yet, as if we havent seen anything concrete yet.
cheers
cheers
hairstyles laska sklamanie. aj o
ruchigup
08-22 03:11 PM
Doesnt make sense to pay $2500 for retaining the lawyer, they are trying to squeeze maximum out of you. If you are changing employer ask if the new company has an immigration lawyer and you can have him for your services. If they dont have any one you can engage services of your own immigration lawyer and have the new lawyer sign the G-28 form. Also please post the name of law firm and your employer so that others can be cautious.
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
New employer has Fragomen and I heard there is lot of negative air about their procedures on PERM. Current employer legal firm is Baker McKenzie.
I am kind of reluctant to have Fragomen as my attorney representation
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
New employer has Fragomen and I heard there is lot of negative air about their procedures on PERM. Current employer legal firm is Baker McKenzie.
I am kind of reluctant to have Fragomen as my attorney representation
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
BMS1
08-21 07:07 PM
You are saying ur PD was Sec 2005? Mine is Dec 2005. Should I also expect it sometime soon :)?
If it is Dec 2005 you must be from non-retro and going by the many approvals for non-retro, you should certainly expect it soon (especially if other checks are complete)
If it is Dec 2005 you must be from non-retro and going by the many approvals for non-retro, you should certainly expect it soon (especially if other checks are complete)
No comments:
Post a Comment