alok97
03-03 09:38 PM
Hi, Last year, I heard about a new rule that says that H4 time will not be counted against H1 time so basically, if someone is transferring from H4 to H1, the time spent in H4 will be excluded while deciding the duration of H1.
Is this rule true ? I mean, has it become a law now ? Did somebody use this rule to grab the time spent in H4.
Please let me know.
Is this rule true ? I mean, has it become a law now ? Did somebody use this rule to grab the time spent in H4.
Please let me know.
wallpaper tattoos on foot for girls.
fromnaija
09-30 06:00 PM
Her H4 is not dependent upon the employer but on her spouse maintaining a valid H1 with an employer. There is no need for your wife's friend to worry or do anything.
However, if she wants to get a visa stamp, she would have to go with her husband's current H1 I797 at that time.
However, if she wants to get a visa stamp, she would have to go with her husband's current H1 I797 at that time.
validIV
03-10 02:32 PM
Check out this article:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/04/smallbusiness/foreign_worker_visas_applications_down.smb/index.htm?postversion=2009030515
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/04/smallbusiness/foreign_worker_visas_applications_down.smb/index.htm?postversion=2009030515
2011 quotes. wallpaper tattoos
Rendering_Rebel
06-17 09:58 AM
Hi, I'm a (web)designer and I'm looking for some small projects to fill my portfolio.
I'm located in Holland, Europe, I have experience with the following software/languages:
Ulead PhotoImpact 7.0
Macromedia Flash MX
Adobe Illustrator
Swift 3D 3.00
HTML
PHP
Prices start at 500 for a complete and dynamic flash site.
Some sites i created:
http://www.pimvanhorssen.com/uitnodiging/
http://www.pimvanhorssen.com/muziekwerkstuk/
http://www.pimvanhorssen.com/
http://www.pimvanhorssen.com/joni
http://www.pimvanhorssen.com/lemmerling
I'm located in Holland, Europe, I have experience with the following software/languages:
Ulead PhotoImpact 7.0
Macromedia Flash MX
Adobe Illustrator
Swift 3D 3.00
HTML
PHP
Prices start at 500 for a complete and dynamic flash site.
Some sites i created:
http://www.pimvanhorssen.com/uitnodiging/
http://www.pimvanhorssen.com/muziekwerkstuk/
http://www.pimvanhorssen.com/
http://www.pimvanhorssen.com/joni
http://www.pimvanhorssen.com/lemmerling
more...
reddymjm
05-21 09:51 AM
1.Should I apply with his ID or I can create my seperate ID and apply through that.
Create your own.
2.For c9 Eligibility status which option should I select?.
Pedning i485 or AOS
a.family based.
b.Employment based .
If your husband filed in EB it Employment based.
.
Create your own.
2.For c9 Eligibility status which option should I select?.
Pedning i485 or AOS
a.family based.
b.Employment based .
If your husband filed in EB it Employment based.
.
anilsal
06-14 11:39 PM
I have seen references that if there are different I-140 apps approved per family, there is a possibility of going for the 485 stage separately. Also I have seen posts stating that one can go for AOS and the other for CP.
How do you communicate to USCIS that for one you are doing AOS and the other you are doing CP, with reference to the 485 stage? When does this really happen?
Additional info:
http://www.hooyou.com/consularprocess/cp-as.html
http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/485_memo.htm
I think the following report nails it
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_revdeb.html
The answer is that you chose AOS/CP at the time of 140 filing.
How do you communicate to USCIS that for one you are doing AOS and the other you are doing CP, with reference to the 485 stage? When does this really happen?
Additional info:
http://www.hooyou.com/consularprocess/cp-as.html
http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/485_memo.htm
I think the following report nails it
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_revdeb.html
The answer is that you chose AOS/CP at the time of 140 filing.
more...
monkeyman
10-04 01:55 PM
Yes, she should have her I-797 approval of extension and principal applicant Notice of action. If you are not traveling, make sure you make a copy of everything.
2010 wallpaper cross tattoos for
virtuo0
02-15 01:07 PM
Hey,
I have a 290B pending at Texas which was submitted on 20 Nov 2007. I had a LUD on 27 Nov. Nothing happened after. Based on others experience (in NSC) it is taking about 4 months for something to happen. No clue about TSC. Just sit tight and have a backup plan. Good luck.
I have a 290B pending at Texas which was submitted on 20 Nov 2007. I had a LUD on 27 Nov. Nothing happened after. Based on others experience (in NSC) it is taking about 4 months for something to happen. No clue about TSC. Just sit tight and have a backup plan. Good luck.
more...
Macaca
08-05 07:16 AM
The Congress So Far (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080401272.html) An ugly finish to a rocky start, August 5, 2007
FORGET ABOUT November's bipartisan promises of civility and cooperation in Congress. At the time they seemed overly optimistic. Nonetheless, it is hard to believe that relations could have deteriorated so far so fast -- both between the new Democratic majority and congressional Republicans and between Democratic lawmakers and President Bush.
Thursday's late-night rumble on the House floor, when a vote was gaveled to what Democrats acknowledge was a premature close, epitomized the ugliness that has overtaken the entire legislative process. In the end, the 110th Congress headed for its August recess with civility in shreds and achievements sparse. Indeed, the only thing that might make August look pleasant is September, when lawmakers will return to resume the acrimonious debate over Iraq policy and confront the looming end of the fiscal year with spending bills unpassed and presidential vetoes in the offing.
There have been scraps of good news from the first seven months. Lawmakers managed to see two of their priorities become law: an increase in the minimum wage and passage of the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. Another major achievement, a lobbying and ethics reform bill that will make important changes in the way Washington does business, is awaiting Mr. Bush's signature. Both chambers passed versions of a measure to extend the health insurance program for children in low-income families.
But many other Democratic priorities -- and a big presidential one, immigration reform -- were snarled in the Senate. The 60-vote majority needed to overcome a filibuster proved to be as big an impediment for majority Democrats as the Democrats had made it when Republicans held power. The failure of immigration reform, of which there had been at least a hope of bipartisan achievement, was a particularly low note. Meanwhile, Democrats in both chambers chose to spend countless hours mired in a fruitless effort to compel an "end" to the war in Iraq.
One of the most disappointing recent developments has been the administration's apparent decision, in the aftermath of the immigration bill's failure, that there was not much to be gained from working with this Congress -- and something to gained by taking it on. This new belligerence has manifested itself in a blizzard of veto threats -- Democrats counted up 31 between May 1 and Aug. 1 -- the most regrettable of which involves the children's health insurance bill.
In the final hours before recess, it was hard to know which was more shameful: the administration's use of the looming vacation to bully Democrats into accepting its overbroad rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or Democrats' spinelessness in caving to this strong-arming.
On the House side, a major disappointment was the failure of Democrats to live up to their pledge to treat the new Republican minority better than Democrats were treated when Republicans held power. Democrats promised a new, more open House, with adequate time for members to digest complex legislation and ample opportunity for the minority to offer amendments on the floor; instead, they, too, often used the same hardball tactics to muscle through legislation that Republicans had employed. That might have been understandable in the Democrats' "first 100 hours" that the new Congress was in session, but it is unfortunate that it persisted until the recess. That's no way to do business, and Democrats know it.
FORGET ABOUT November's bipartisan promises of civility and cooperation in Congress. At the time they seemed overly optimistic. Nonetheless, it is hard to believe that relations could have deteriorated so far so fast -- both between the new Democratic majority and congressional Republicans and between Democratic lawmakers and President Bush.
Thursday's late-night rumble on the House floor, when a vote was gaveled to what Democrats acknowledge was a premature close, epitomized the ugliness that has overtaken the entire legislative process. In the end, the 110th Congress headed for its August recess with civility in shreds and achievements sparse. Indeed, the only thing that might make August look pleasant is September, when lawmakers will return to resume the acrimonious debate over Iraq policy and confront the looming end of the fiscal year with spending bills unpassed and presidential vetoes in the offing.
There have been scraps of good news from the first seven months. Lawmakers managed to see two of their priorities become law: an increase in the minimum wage and passage of the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. Another major achievement, a lobbying and ethics reform bill that will make important changes in the way Washington does business, is awaiting Mr. Bush's signature. Both chambers passed versions of a measure to extend the health insurance program for children in low-income families.
But many other Democratic priorities -- and a big presidential one, immigration reform -- were snarled in the Senate. The 60-vote majority needed to overcome a filibuster proved to be as big an impediment for majority Democrats as the Democrats had made it when Republicans held power. The failure of immigration reform, of which there had been at least a hope of bipartisan achievement, was a particularly low note. Meanwhile, Democrats in both chambers chose to spend countless hours mired in a fruitless effort to compel an "end" to the war in Iraq.
One of the most disappointing recent developments has been the administration's apparent decision, in the aftermath of the immigration bill's failure, that there was not much to be gained from working with this Congress -- and something to gained by taking it on. This new belligerence has manifested itself in a blizzard of veto threats -- Democrats counted up 31 between May 1 and Aug. 1 -- the most regrettable of which involves the children's health insurance bill.
In the final hours before recess, it was hard to know which was more shameful: the administration's use of the looming vacation to bully Democrats into accepting its overbroad rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or Democrats' spinelessness in caving to this strong-arming.
On the House side, a major disappointment was the failure of Democrats to live up to their pledge to treat the new Republican minority better than Democrats were treated when Republicans held power. Democrats promised a new, more open House, with adequate time for members to digest complex legislation and ample opportunity for the minority to offer amendments on the floor; instead, they, too, often used the same hardball tactics to muscle through legislation that Republicans had employed. That might have been understandable in the Democrats' "first 100 hours" that the new Congress was in session, but it is unfortunate that it persisted until the recess. That's no way to do business, and Democrats know it.
hair hair wallpaper Tattoos For
Macaca
05-19 07:04 AM
House GOP Uses Procedural Tactic To Frustrate Democratic Majority Motion to Recommit Employed to Delay or Alter Legislation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801697.html?hpid=topnews) By Lyndsey Layton (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lyndsey+layton/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, May 19, 2007
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
more...
sertasheep
05-10 08:53 PM
Dear IV Members,
Recording of the May 12 Attorney Conf. Call Recording is now available at http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com
No immediate conf. calls are planned at this time. Please await more details.
For reference purposes: on how to submit questions for future calls, see details at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4316
We will advise when the next call is planned so that you can time your questions accordingly
Recording of the May 12 Attorney Conf. Call Recording is now available at http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com
No immediate conf. calls are planned at this time. Please await more details.
For reference purposes: on how to submit questions for future calls, see details at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4316
We will advise when the next call is planned so that you can time your questions accordingly
hot quotes for tattoos for girls.
sidbee
05-30 02:13 PM
Hi People.
Did anyone of you got a PIO Card, through CGNY, using the mail service. If yes , can you please let me know , what all documents , you send(what notarized and what not)??How long it took.
Did anyone of you got a PIO Card, through CGNY, using the mail service. If yes , can you please let me know , what all documents , you send(what notarized and what not)??How long it took.
more...
house tattoos of irds for girls
ragz4u
02-05 04:47 PM
We are pleased to announce that renowned author and economist Dr. Richard Florida has endorsed the efforts of the folks at www.immigrationvoice.org
You can read the bio of Dr. Richard here http://www.creativeclass.org/_flight_author.shtml
The text of the endorsement can be seen here http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=43
You can read the bio of Dr. Richard here http://www.creativeclass.org/_flight_author.shtml
The text of the endorsement can be seen here http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=43
tattoo wallpaper lettering tattoos
ajaysri
04-09 02:29 PM
Hi,
I have changed to a new employer using AC-21 recently. I have pro-actively sent AC-21 documentation (new offer of employment, covering letter and supporting docs) to USCIS. Ever since, I am checking my case online. Its about 3 months now that I have sent this info and there has not been any update/LUD on my 485 case so far. I am not sure if my I-485 case has details about my new employment.
I am currently doing my EAD renewal. I am thinking if it will be possible to indicate to USCIS about my new employment. Can you please advice on -
a) if it is wise to do so?
b) How can it be done?
Thanks,
Ajaysri
I have changed to a new employer using AC-21 recently. I have pro-actively sent AC-21 documentation (new offer of employment, covering letter and supporting docs) to USCIS. Ever since, I am checking my case online. Its about 3 months now that I have sent this info and there has not been any update/LUD on my 485 case so far. I am not sure if my I-485 case has details about my new employment.
I am currently doing my EAD renewal. I am thinking if it will be possible to indicate to USCIS about my new employment. Can you please advice on -
a) if it is wise to do so?
b) How can it be done?
Thanks,
Ajaysri
more...
pictures wallpaper foot tattoo designs
aphotica
03-01 02:47 AM
i just want some experience working for a person who would like me to make them various medias from websites to graphics.
i have standard knowledge in;
Photoshop
3dsmax
html
i have standard knowledge in;
Photoshop
3dsmax
html
dresses wallpaper girls star tattoos
fide_champ
05-22 03:27 PM
Hi Friends,
I have approved I-140 (PD Sep,2007) but recently my H1 extension was denied so had to come on H4, so now what will happen to my GC, do I have to start from scratch OR my I-140 is still valid once I come back on H1 (with different employer).
Please respond
why was your H1-extension denied? If your employer supports, you can still file I-485 but he has to hold on to it till the date becomes current.
I have approved I-140 (PD Sep,2007) but recently my H1 extension was denied so had to come on H4, so now what will happen to my GC, do I have to start from scratch OR my I-140 is still valid once I come back on H1 (with different employer).
Please respond
why was your H1-extension denied? If your employer supports, you can still file I-485 but he has to hold on to it till the date becomes current.
more...
makeup wallpaper neck tattoos for
samnay
02-21 04:26 PM
I think he lieing. As long as you change the employer, you can file in the same EB category.
girlfriend wallpaper tattoo quotes on
Macaca
07-29 06:03 PM
Bet on India (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800999.html) The Bush administration presses forward with a nuclear agreement -- and hopes for a strategic partnership. July 29, 2007
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
hairstyles tattoo quotes for girls.
LostInGCProcess
11-03 03:29 PM
If we are on H1 and able to file I-485(AOS) and continue to be on H1 until it expires. Then are we automatically on AOS after the expiry of H1? Or do we have to inform USCIS our intent to switch to AOS?
The reason I am asking this question is: I saw a case, although not similar, where the individual was on H1 and applied I-485 (inJuly 2007), he continued on H1 until it expired and decided to stay on h1 and so his employer applied for extension of H1 in 2009. At that time he received an RFE, the employer did not respond to the RFE. So, eventually the H1 Extension was denied.
After that USCIS denied his I-485 also. Reason give was: "Since the H1B EOS (Extension of Status) request was denied, it did not grant, or have the effect of granting, a lawful status during its pendency."
Please have your thoughts on this. Cause I am sure many of us have started using EAD, but did we transition the right way from H1 to EAD?
The reason I am asking this question is: I saw a case, although not similar, where the individual was on H1 and applied I-485 (inJuly 2007), he continued on H1 until it expired and decided to stay on h1 and so his employer applied for extension of H1 in 2009. At that time he received an RFE, the employer did not respond to the RFE. So, eventually the H1 Extension was denied.
After that USCIS denied his I-485 also. Reason give was: "Since the H1B EOS (Extension of Status) request was denied, it did not grant, or have the effect of granting, a lawful status during its pendency."
Please have your thoughts on this. Cause I am sure many of us have started using EAD, but did we transition the right way from H1 to EAD?
mrdelhiite
02-26 11:34 AM
yes if u do a h1 transfer (and invoke AC21)..
-M
-M
vaishnavilakshmi
06-17 03:28 AM
Hi,
ur wife's parents can write an affidavit stating the petname alias realname.For instance if her petname is "rani" and true name "swathi".They can write an affidavit mentioning that" rani alias swathi "is my daughter in the affidavit and get it notarised from any lawyer in india.The sample format can be obtained from ur attorney.
Hope this helps u,
vaishu
ur wife's parents can write an affidavit stating the petname alias realname.For instance if her petname is "rani" and true name "swathi".They can write an affidavit mentioning that" rani alias swathi "is my daughter in the affidavit and get it notarised from any lawyer in india.The sample format can be obtained from ur attorney.
Hope this helps u,
vaishu
No comments:
Post a Comment