Blog Feeds
03-22 12:20 PM
Those who follow immigration politics closely know that the finding in a new America's Voice Bendixen poll of 1,100 Hispanic voters that more than 3/4 consider immigration to be a major issue for them is true. But for many anti-immigrant members of Congress, there's a case of wishful thinking going on - that Hispanic voters only consider immigration a minor issue and will vote on other issues instead. Or an even less realistic assumption that Latino voters actually feel the same way as them and want to see immigration reform fail. That thinking failed miserably in 2006 and 2008 as...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/poll-immigration-crucial-issue-to-most-hispanic-voters.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/poll-immigration-crucial-issue-to-most-hispanic-voters.html)
wallpaper Jennifer Grey Hairstyle
mbartosik
11-21 03:32 PM
Please take a look at this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15540
and suggest some witty ideas for the text.
thanks
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15540
and suggest some witty ideas for the text.
thanks
Steve Mitchell
November 1st, 2005, 01:08 AM
Nikon's very competitive price point on the 10.2 MP D200 (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/2003) ($1,849) will definitely test Canon's bet on the full frame and much more expensive 5D. Read about the new D200 here (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/2003). It should also hasten an announcement to a succesor to the 20D.
2011 Jennifer Grey#39;s hairstyle,
Blog Feeds
02-19 07:00 PM
Pro-immigration advocates can come from the conservative movement just as they can come from the liberal camp. And just as there is an internal battle on the left (labor protectionists often seize on anti-immigration positions), there is also a battle on the right between the pro-business, small government advocates and the xenophobic America first crowd who usually couch their arguments in terms of law and order (though if you dig a little, you'll find that these folks are usually against liberalizing rules to make legal immigration easier). Right wing Talkradionews.com reports on efforts by a Latino group to attract conservative...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/conservatives-gearing-up-for-civil-war-over-immigration.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/conservatives-gearing-up-for-civil-war-over-immigration.html)
more...
augustus
07-20 12:21 PM
People,
Please send greeting cards with the same motivation we all sent flowers.
We should not look ungrateful. People will appreciate this community even more if we show gratitude too. The press we got for our non violence movement along the lines of Mahatma Gandhi, speaks of our integrity and our culture.
We have a strong cultural background, with Mahatma Gandhi as our visionary and ideal. We follow his principles and I am sure if he had been here today, he would have had the same drive to thank the government for revoking their decision and restoring faith in the immigrant community?
PLEASE SEND GREETING CARDS AS PER INSTRUCTIONS. PLEASE DO NOT LOSE TRACK WHILE CELEBRATING THE OUTCOME.
Please send greeting cards with the same motivation we all sent flowers.
We should not look ungrateful. People will appreciate this community even more if we show gratitude too. The press we got for our non violence movement along the lines of Mahatma Gandhi, speaks of our integrity and our culture.
We have a strong cultural background, with Mahatma Gandhi as our visionary and ideal. We follow his principles and I am sure if he had been here today, he would have had the same drive to thank the government for revoking their decision and restoring faith in the immigrant community?
PLEASE SEND GREETING CARDS AS PER INSTRUCTIONS. PLEASE DO NOT LOSE TRACK WHILE CELEBRATING THE OUTCOME.
gc_in_30_yrs
09-23 09:16 PM
thats good news and bad news.
good news because, who waited for years for LC will be very happy.
bad news because, the PD will go back even more!
:D
good news because, who waited for years for LC will be very happy.
bad news because, the PD will go back even more!
:D
more...
Blog Feeds
05-25 08:20 AM
The American Immigration Council weighs in on the importance of the subject: The American Immigration Council�s Legal Action Center commends Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for convening today�s hearing on �Improving Efficiency and Ensuring Justice in the Immigration Court System.� Immigration courts have long suffered from crushing backlogs that can delay the scheduling of hearings for years at a time. Additionally, immigrants who appear before these courts enjoy fewer legal protections than most Americans expect from any fair system of justice. With the dramatic and rapid escalation of immigration enforcement policies and resources, too little...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/senate-holding-hearing-on-immigration-courts-today.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/senate-holding-hearing-on-immigration-courts-today.html)
2010 australian hairstyles
anantc
09-20 03:13 PM
Thanks Vicky.
So I have to file regular I-140. Any urls where you can track which is going currently or any weekly/daily updates from other sites..?
Thank you.:rolleyes:
So I have to file regular I-140. Any urls where you can track which is going currently or any weekly/daily updates from other sites..?
Thank you.:rolleyes:
more...
Maria_Mathew
04-03 12:21 AM
Hi there,
What's the typical starting salary for a Software Developer (Java/SQL) in Massachusetts, USA with 18 months of Indian job experience? The job offer is from a small company (with ~150 employees and close to ~120 million revenue), but with great growth prospects.
-Maria
What's the typical starting salary for a Software Developer (Java/SQL) in Massachusetts, USA with 18 months of Indian job experience? The job offer is from a small company (with ~150 employees and close to ~120 million revenue), but with great growth prospects.
-Maria
hair 50 - Hairstyles amp; Haircuts
senk1s
11-19 09:33 PM
https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/ApplnForms/RulesAndFees/VisaFees.aspx
this might help ...but you might have already looked at this while scheduling an appointment
this might help ...but you might have already looked at this while scheduling an appointment
more...
gsk1010
03-13 02:24 PM
Hi,
I graduated with Masters in Dec 2008. We have 29 month OPT. My OPT ends in June 2011.
So, I believe we have 3 chances for applying for H1
April 2009
April 2010
April 2011
I have not applied in 2009 and will not apply in 2010.
If I apply for April 2011, will I have any trouble, as my F1 ends in June 2011. I guess H1 starts in October. So, in between June and October , will I need to travel out of country . My University says, it will not be trouble. Please explain.
Thanks
Santosh
I graduated with Masters in Dec 2008. We have 29 month OPT. My OPT ends in June 2011.
So, I believe we have 3 chances for applying for H1
April 2009
April 2010
April 2011
I have not applied in 2009 and will not apply in 2010.
If I apply for April 2011, will I have any trouble, as my F1 ends in June 2011. I guess H1 starts in October. So, in between June and October , will I need to travel out of country . My University says, it will not be trouble. Please explain.
Thanks
Santosh
hot grey hair styles for women
rkdownload
12-03 05:50 PM
We applied for our EAD renewal with following status till date
My Details
EAD Applied : Oct 9, 2008
Card production ordered : Nov 17, 2008 (Not yet recieved)
Approval notice sent :Nov 26, 2008 (Not yet recieved)
Spouse Details
EAD Applied : Oct 9, 2008
Card production ordered : Nov 21, 2008 (recieved on Nov 24, 2008)
Approval notice sent :Nov 24, 2008 (Not yet recieved)
I am kind of worried as it has been more than 2 weeks and I have not yet recieved my EAD while my spouse's came within 3 days.
I was wondering if someone got his/her card even after 2 weeks as generally it take 5-10 days. Any advice would be highly appreciated.
Thx
Raj
My Details
EAD Applied : Oct 9, 2008
Card production ordered : Nov 17, 2008 (Not yet recieved)
Approval notice sent :Nov 26, 2008 (Not yet recieved)
Spouse Details
EAD Applied : Oct 9, 2008
Card production ordered : Nov 21, 2008 (recieved on Nov 24, 2008)
Approval notice sent :Nov 24, 2008 (Not yet recieved)
I am kind of worried as it has been more than 2 weeks and I have not yet recieved my EAD while my spouse's came within 3 days.
I was wondering if someone got his/her card even after 2 weeks as generally it take 5-10 days. Any advice would be highly appreciated.
Thx
Raj
more...
house short grey hairstyles.
Blog Feeds
06-22 10:10 AM
From an email from America's Voice: Washington, DC � Today, President Obama spoke at the Esperanza National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC. The following is a statement from Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America�s Voice: �President Obama�s remarks today at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast show, once again, that he has a sophisticated understanding of how the elements of comprehensive immigration reform work together to solve this problem. He gets that being both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws is necessary to create a legal immigration regime that works. While the President promised to enact reform...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/mixed-signals-from-white-house-on-cir.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/mixed-signals-from-white-house-on-cir.html)
tattoo premiere of quot;Grey Gardensquot;
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
more...
pictures mid length hairstyles.
RRG
07-06 06:18 PM
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=194681
dresses Dancer Jennifer Grey attends
humsuplou
06-10 07:26 PM
So the procedure is suppose to be easy, and very low risk of not getting renewed?
Thanks!
Thanks!
more...
makeup Grey Hair. Gray Hair Styles
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
girlfriend wavy blonde hairstyle in
aray
09-26 02:46 PM
I think I know the answer to this, but I just wanted to make sure from the experts on this forum.
Do we need to apply for new EAD/AP if we change jobs using AC21 even if the current EAD/AP (approved when working for the GC sponsoring employer) are valid for almost 10 more months?
I think that EAD/AP are not dependent/tied to the employer.
Am I right gurus?
Do we need to apply for new EAD/AP if we change jobs using AC21 even if the current EAD/AP (approved when working for the GC sponsoring employer) are valid for almost 10 more months?
I think that EAD/AP are not dependent/tied to the employer.
Am I right gurus?
hairstyles 1979 plait waves hairstyle
coolfun
07-14 03:46 PM
Hi All,
Today I received an email from CRIS saying that they have sent me an RFE on my AP application. My wife's AP was approved last week, so it really confuses me about what this could be about? Can anyone shed more light on "probable" causes of I-131 RFE?
I have another question - my passport is expiring in November 2007. Could that be the cause of the AP RFE? I could get that renewed from Indian embassy in 10 days, so its not a problem. But, has anyone heard about cases where expiring passport causes RFEs?
Thanks for your help.
Today I received an email from CRIS saying that they have sent me an RFE on my AP application. My wife's AP was approved last week, so it really confuses me about what this could be about? Can anyone shed more light on "probable" causes of I-131 RFE?
I have another question - my passport is expiring in November 2007. Could that be the cause of the AP RFE? I could get that renewed from Indian embassy in 10 days, so its not a problem. But, has anyone heard about cases where expiring passport causes RFEs?
Thanks for your help.
bkarnik
04-04 11:56 AM
Can you provide a link to the bulletin?
Any comments abt the dates?
Any comments abt the dates?
crystal
07-27 10:41 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11203
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar