Macaca
07-23 07:32 PM
Reid's Anti-Reform Maneuvers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072200881.html?nav=hcmodule) By Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/) Washington Post, July 23, 2007
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
wallpaper Clusters for Adjectives
slc_ut
07-29 10:48 PM
For my 9th year H1-B visa extension, i want to use the premium processing. All the attorney fee and any other expenses will be paid by my company. I want to pay only the $1000 for premium processing. Is this legal ? Can the attorney attach my $1000 check signed by me, to the visa extension application with all other paperwork and send it to BCIS ?
If this is not legal what are my options ?
Please let me know.
slc_ut
If this is not legal what are my options ?
Please let me know.
slc_ut
Blog Feeds
01-03 07:10 AM
The President has started revealing his plans on immigration for the next year. It sounds like he's planning on trying a do-over with Congress and attempting again to get a comprehensive immigration bill passed. He'll make the case for this in his State of the Union Address. I'm happy the President is still interested in working for change, I sincerely hope he is not making passing a reform bill his SOLE strategy. I'm reminded of Presidents in the past who regularly spoke in favor of something, but you just knew they didn't really care and were just trying to appease...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/obama-to-address-immigration-plans-in-state-of-the-union-address.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/obama-to-address-immigration-plans-in-state-of-the-union-address.html)
2011 for Adjectives-short,
RonWeisly
08-09 06:51 PM
Hi,
I believe someone already asked a similar question but I just want to describe my exact situation:
- My LC (EB3) got approved on July 2007, PD is March 2007 - Company A
- My I-140 and I-485 were filed concurrently on July 2007 - Company A
- I work as a contractor and my client (Company B) is offering me a full-time job and would like me to join on Sept 2007
- I still have 4 years on my H1B
With the assumption that my current employer (Company A) will give full cooperation on my current GC process, if I join company B on H1B transfer now, can I possibly invoke AC21 later after my I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days?
I'll greatly appreciate any comments.
I believe someone already asked a similar question but I just want to describe my exact situation:
- My LC (EB3) got approved on July 2007, PD is March 2007 - Company A
- My I-140 and I-485 were filed concurrently on July 2007 - Company A
- I work as a contractor and my client (Company B) is offering me a full-time job and would like me to join on Sept 2007
- I still have 4 years on my H1B
With the assumption that my current employer (Company A) will give full cooperation on my current GC process, if I join company B on H1B transfer now, can I possibly invoke AC21 later after my I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days?
I'll greatly appreciate any comments.
more...
tikka
07-04 03:05 PM
Illegal non-immigrants did the rally to local USCIS offices. It would be good if we pick one day in 2nd week of July and have a rally to local USCIS offices. This will immediately catch the media attention.
Rally news should be spread out to media so we can get enough coverage?
Let's discuss if you guys like this idea.
create a thread for the sake of it. you already started a new therad for this topic.
please close this
thank you
Rally news should be spread out to media so we can get enough coverage?
Let's discuss if you guys like this idea.
create a thread for the sake of it. you already started a new therad for this topic.
please close this
thank you
maacho
12-09 08:31 PM
Hi Does Anyone Know Whats Happening With The H1b Increase Or The Opt Period (29 Months) Increase????
Please Any Info I Will Be GraduatiNG Soon And Dont Want Any Lottery I Wlil Be Screwed If I Dont Get!!!!:mad:
Please Any Info I Will Be GraduatiNG Soon And Dont Want Any Lottery I Wlil Be Screwed If I Dont Get!!!!:mad:
more...
shreekhand
07-09 06:57 PM
You could have done that only if you had the actual appointment notice with you (say with a different date/
place/time)
Unfortunately not without. See my PM to you.
place/time)
Unfortunately not without. See my PM to you.
2010 Post image for Punctuation of
svdcpa
06-06 10:45 AM
i am a cpa and my labor certification still gathering dust at the dallas backlog proc center. i did received the 45-day letter march 2005.
more...
Macaca
11-09 04:54 PM
A Failure to Lead (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010843) The Democratic Congress is more interested in acting out than in taking positive action BY KARL ROVE | Wall Street Journal, November 9, 2007
Mr. Rove is a former adviser to President George W. Bush.
This week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren't in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. Their bright campaign promises are unfulfilled. Democratic leadership is in disarray. And Congress's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history.
The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.
Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a "relatively small" difference.
Let's also be clear about what it means to roll back the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as the Democrats want to do. Every income-tax payer will pay more as all tax rates rise. Families will pay $500 more per child as they lose the child tax credit. Taxes on small businesses would go up by an average of about $4,000. Retirees will pay higher taxes on investment retirement income. And now we have the $1 trillion tax increase proposed as "tax reform" by the Democrats' chief tax writer last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failing to pass a budget, proposing a huge spike in federal spending and offering the biggest tax increase in history are not the only hallmarks of this Democratic Congress.
Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq by the surge, diminished the efforts of our military, and wasted precious time with failed attempts to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They continue to try to implement this course, which would lead to chaos in the region, the creation of a possible terror state with the third largest oil reserves in the world, and a major propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden as well as for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.
After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership's proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party's leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles.
After pledging a "Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism," Democrats have refused to make permanent reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the Director of National Intelligence said were needed to close "critical gaps in our intelligence capability." Their presidential candidates fell all over each other in a recent debate to pledge an end to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Then Senate Democratic leaders, thinking there was an opening for political advantage, slow-walked the confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general. It's obvious that this is a man who knows the important role the Justice Department plays in the war on terror. Delaying his confirmation is only making it harder to prosecute the war.
Democrats promised "civility and bipartisanship." Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences.
Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party's most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees.
The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.
Mr. Rove is a former adviser to President George W. Bush.
This week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren't in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. Their bright campaign promises are unfulfilled. Democratic leadership is in disarray. And Congress's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history.
The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.
Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a "relatively small" difference.
Let's also be clear about what it means to roll back the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as the Democrats want to do. Every income-tax payer will pay more as all tax rates rise. Families will pay $500 more per child as they lose the child tax credit. Taxes on small businesses would go up by an average of about $4,000. Retirees will pay higher taxes on investment retirement income. And now we have the $1 trillion tax increase proposed as "tax reform" by the Democrats' chief tax writer last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failing to pass a budget, proposing a huge spike in federal spending and offering the biggest tax increase in history are not the only hallmarks of this Democratic Congress.
Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq by the surge, diminished the efforts of our military, and wasted precious time with failed attempts to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They continue to try to implement this course, which would lead to chaos in the region, the creation of a possible terror state with the third largest oil reserves in the world, and a major propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden as well as for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.
After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership's proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party's leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles.
After pledging a "Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism," Democrats have refused to make permanent reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the Director of National Intelligence said were needed to close "critical gaps in our intelligence capability." Their presidential candidates fell all over each other in a recent debate to pledge an end to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Then Senate Democratic leaders, thinking there was an opening for political advantage, slow-walked the confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general. It's obvious that this is a man who knows the important role the Justice Department plays in the war on terror. Delaying his confirmation is only making it harder to prosecute the war.
Democrats promised "civility and bipartisanship." Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences.
Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party's most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees.
The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.
hair Images for adjectives and
chil3
04-13 01:48 PM
Spillover is minus? How's that possible - genius? So - are they revoking GCs already issued?
Talking abt Spillover...not already allocated..
Talking abt Spillover...not already allocated..
more...
cled
October 28th, 2004, 09:13 PM
Second try.
Comments ?
Thanks.
Comments ?
Thanks.
hot for Adjectives and Adverbs
madasu2310
03-10 05:34 PM
Hi all,
I'm on my 5th year of H-1b visa. I had my I-797 approved until 10/30/12. My old passport was due to expire on 2/25/11 so during my recent trip my I-94 was given until 2/25/11, even though my visa is until 10/30/2012. So my lawyer filed I-539 to get a new I-94 on 2/20/11. I still didn't get my case number yet. Now I have another Job offer and the new company's lawyer says that i cannot take another job until this case is complete. I'm totally confused and not sure what to do. Please help. your help is very much appreciated.
Thanks
Mani
I'm on my 5th year of H-1b visa. I had my I-797 approved until 10/30/12. My old passport was due to expire on 2/25/11 so during my recent trip my I-94 was given until 2/25/11, even though my visa is until 10/30/2012. So my lawyer filed I-539 to get a new I-94 on 2/20/11. I still didn't get my case number yet. Now I have another Job offer and the new company's lawyer says that i cannot take another job until this case is complete. I'm totally confused and not sure what to do. Please help. your help is very much appreciated.
Thanks
Mani
more...
house adjectives negative adjectives
DoubleN
06-28 02:27 PM
I believe you should inform about the current status of your wife.
tattoo Good for adjectives and
ita
11-19 04:59 PM
I requested for a document that got returned as undeliverable to be resent.
I first requested CSR and she gave me a referrral#.
Same day I spoke with IIO and she made the request again for me(before I could tell her I spoke with CSR)
Today I spoke with a CSR and gave her the referral# that the CSR gave me last week and this lady says she didn't find any information related to this referral# .She did say it does surprise her. She also said she will open a new request .
I was concerned if that will be kind of duplication of the work done by CSR & IIO last week and she said there is no need for such concern.
What does all this mean?
They open a request , give you a referral# and tell you the document will get mailed in 3-5 business days .
IIO says she has placed a request.
You go back after a week , and referral# has no information attached to it and this CSR says she 'll open new request.
Anybody has any idea?
Edit/Delete Message
I first requested CSR and she gave me a referrral#.
Same day I spoke with IIO and she made the request again for me(before I could tell her I spoke with CSR)
Today I spoke with a CSR and gave her the referral# that the CSR gave me last week and this lady says she didn't find any information related to this referral# .She did say it does surprise her. She also said she will open a new request .
I was concerned if that will be kind of duplication of the work done by CSR & IIO last week and she said there is no need for such concern.
What does all this mean?
They open a request , give you a referral# and tell you the document will get mailed in 3-5 business days .
IIO says she has placed a request.
You go back after a week , and referral# has no information attached to it and this CSR says she 'll open new request.
Anybody has any idea?
Edit/Delete Message
more...
pictures only used for adjectives.
(.JPG "COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES")
jessie1981
08-01 02:32 PM
Conclustion: "This Court finds that the FBI owes no duty to an applicant to process his or her background check. Absent a duty to the applicant, neither the Mandamus Act nor the Administrative Procedures Act confer jurisdiction on this Court over the FBI. Without an independent basis for jurisdiction over the FBI, and since the Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer jurisdiction, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to review any decisions or actions of the FBI regarding its processing of a background check for CIS that is related to immigration matters."
It seems that suing FBI becomes ineffective now.
It seems that suing FBI becomes ineffective now.
dresses adjectives for depressed,
pappu
01-02 12:19 PM
Thanks a lot I am sendiing you a PM right away
more...
makeup CRAZY FOR adjectives
Roger Binny
02-20 05:39 PM
Cool, if you dont mind please change the thread title.
girlfriend adjectives example
subba
05-07 07:32 AM
I have heard in the past from core team and other senior members that
we have to bank on CIR for now, and if it is dead SKIL etc become an option.
The one problem with this might be "how and when would we know CIR is dead, and would it be too late to push for SKIL at that point?".
I understand this is a highly speculative question, but am hoping someone from core can articulate what our game plan regarding contingencies are.
(If this is something you can't answer on the webpage, I can understand the reasons for keeping the gameplan under wraps from our adversaries).
we have to bank on CIR for now, and if it is dead SKIL etc become an option.
The one problem with this might be "how and when would we know CIR is dead, and would it be too late to push for SKIL at that point?".
I understand this is a highly speculative question, but am hoping someone from core can articulate what our game plan regarding contingencies are.
(If this is something you can't answer on the webpage, I can understand the reasons for keeping the gameplan under wraps from our adversaries).
hairstyles the chart for adjectives
bobbo0722
08-03 09:12 PM
http://www.peaseblog.com/pope_stamp.jpg
http://www.peaseblog.com/popo_stamp.jpg
http://www.peaseblog.com/kirupa_love.jpg
http://www.peaseblog.com/popo_stamp.jpg
http://www.peaseblog.com/kirupa_love.jpg
Zulagh
07-24 07:17 AM
Hello?
I entered U.S with B1/B2 visa and got changed into F1 status. While F1 status got approved
I departed U.S due to family matter.
Now I'd like to make it sure that my B1/B2 visa is still valid,because I plan to visit to my friend who lives in U.S.
How to check my B1/B2 visa could be remained still valid?
Or does somebody know anybody who had been in same situation?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards Zulagh.
I entered U.S with B1/B2 visa and got changed into F1 status. While F1 status got approved
I departed U.S due to family matter.
Now I'd like to make it sure that my B1/B2 visa is still valid,because I plan to visit to my friend who lives in U.S.
How to check my B1/B2 visa could be remained still valid?
Or does somebody know anybody who had been in same situation?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards Zulagh.
Templarian
09-21 03:41 PM
:thumb:
I can has grammar now?
http://kirupa.templarian.com/smh.gif
I can has grammar now?
http://kirupa.templarian.com/smh.gif
No comments:
Post a Comment