dealsnet
03-19 11:49 AM
I think he mentioned 2005 fee as the fee for I-485 in 2005 (old fee structure). Not the check date of 2005. Let him clarify.
Just wondering, a 2005 check is a very valid check. A check with future date is not valid for cashing immediatly. This may be invalid if the lawyer didnt had the account in 2005.
Just wondering, a 2005 check is a very valid check. A check with future date is not valid for cashing immediatly. This may be invalid if the lawyer didnt had the account in 2005.
wallpaper Audi RS4 and Mercedes-Benz
GotGC??
03-27 02:09 PM
You missed the sarcasm, never mind :)
Yes, depending on how the educational requirements in your LC is worded - I mean right down to the last word - it just might leave you with some room for manoeuvre.
Yes. I have paid quite amount of money to fill the PERM application.
So, what you are saying that I actually can continue the process?
Yes, depending on how the educational requirements in your LC is worded - I mean right down to the last word - it just might leave you with some room for manoeuvre.
Yes. I have paid quite amount of money to fill the PERM application.
So, what you are saying that I actually can continue the process?
thomachan72
09-29 02:31 PM
While leaving India is there any place we can declare saying this gold we are taking out of india.
This way when we enter back in india , we can show evidence that the gold was purchased in india itself and no hassels from customs.
Unfortunately NO. you cannot declare anything while leaving India.
My question is; Why do you really want to bring your jwellery here? Why not keep in some safety locker (bank) in India. Is it attractive to walk around with huge gold chains/bangles in the US? Also we have been hearing about burglaries in Indian households becuause of easy access to gold.
Buy gold and keep it in locker in India. Come here with some "duplicate gold" and live free.:D:D:D
This way when we enter back in india , we can show evidence that the gold was purchased in india itself and no hassels from customs.
Unfortunately NO. you cannot declare anything while leaving India.
My question is; Why do you really want to bring your jwellery here? Why not keep in some safety locker (bank) in India. Is it attractive to walk around with huge gold chains/bangles in the US? Also we have been hearing about burglaries in Indian households becuause of easy access to gold.
Buy gold and keep it in locker in India. Come here with some "duplicate gold" and live free.:D:D:D
2011 Audi RS4 Quattro
gc_chahiye
10-01 12:52 PM
They are not dumb , they might be already keeping a watch on you while on soil.
no the point is, CHECKING itself is taking 2-3 years. Why would they start keeping a watch on someone if he/she is not a suspect? There are literally millions of pending applications, they cant keep a watch on everyone.
The reason for slow name checks was discussed earlier somewhere (Ombudsmans report?): lack of resources and interest on the FBI side of things.
no the point is, CHECKING itself is taking 2-3 years. Why would they start keeping a watch on someone if he/she is not a suspect? There are literally millions of pending applications, they cant keep a watch on everyone.
The reason for slow name checks was discussed earlier somewhere (Ombudsmans report?): lack of resources and interest on the FBI side of things.
more...
laksmi
12-03 08:02 PM
I am also in same boat, I was gathering information on the same and found different solutions.
1)To be on safer side you can transfer H1B and also invoke AC21 to the new employer, if the new employer is willing to support,
2)If H1B is not revoked by the old employer then Yes , you can work on EAD or H1B for the same old employer
3) since I140 is approved for more then 6 months, you are safe, he may not have options to revoke I140.
4)If you have validity of H1B stamping on your passport then no need of using AP as well to go in and out of country, even after using EAD.
please advice on the same, good questions synergy.
1)To be on safer side you can transfer H1B and also invoke AC21 to the new employer, if the new employer is willing to support,
2)If H1B is not revoked by the old employer then Yes , you can work on EAD or H1B for the same old employer
3) since I140 is approved for more then 6 months, you are safe, he may not have options to revoke I140.
4)If you have validity of H1B stamping on your passport then no need of using AP as well to go in and out of country, even after using EAD.
please advice on the same, good questions synergy.
immiusa
09-13 12:12 PM
Hello,
This is my opinion and I am not a lawyer.
I do not think usa consulate can track spouse unless otherwise specified/applied for H4. Since you both have individual work permits. You will appearing like an individual. So, there will be no questions regarding spouse status.
Regarding your H1b deniel laster year. I have not heard of such cases. But one thing. USA consulate can ask for more evidence regarding the job offer in USA. They may even say that your job offer do not seem valid.
This is my opinion and I am not a lawyer.
I do not think usa consulate can track spouse unless otherwise specified/applied for H4. Since you both have individual work permits. You will appearing like an individual. So, there will be no questions regarding spouse status.
Regarding your H1b deniel laster year. I have not heard of such cases. But one thing. USA consulate can ask for more evidence regarding the job offer in USA. They may even say that your job offer do not seem valid.
more...
ash27
07-15 11:36 PM
Do you guys see any issues if I-94 is expired but I-485 application is pending and the petitioner is working on EAD? Any thoughts will be appreciated. Thanks,
2010 Audi Rs4 2011 Pictures.
snathan
09-29 09:21 AM
We have taken indian jewellary with us when we travelled to India. I dont think it is a problem and you dont have to declare it in customs. I think if you are carrying cold in the form on coins or bars, you will have to pay customs. I dont remember but it says in the customs form that personal jewellary need not be mentioned. I would check the india's customs website.
I never knew this....:D
I never knew this....:D
more...
TomPlate
01-09 03:34 PM
Extrapolating the Einstein equation E =mc2 I get the following results :
EB3 June 01
EB2 Dec 2000 Your equation is wrong. It is going to be current for all EB category.
EB3 June 01
EB2 Dec 2000 Your equation is wrong. It is going to be current for all EB category.
hair the 2012 Audi RS4. Why?
kingkon_2000
03-26 11:16 AM
I had my EB2 LC rejected and the reason that DOL gave was they were not able to contact the employer and/or employer did not respond to their correspondence. Lawyer gave me two option to refile (I will lose PD) or appeal. This was in 2005 when PERM had just started and the lawyers said they did not know how long the appeal process takes in PERM since it was new system. To cut the story short I received the approved LC within 45days of appeal, but my case was a simple one I think. Your case it a bit different but in no case an appeal should take 1.5 years at least in PERM.
more...
KKtexas
11-25 04:31 PM
vxb2004,
Was there any LUD on ur 485 after u sent AC21 Documents in Apr?.
Was there any LUD on ur 485 after u sent AC21 Documents in Apr?.
hot Audi A7 Coupe And Cab Revealed
GCDelay
11-30 02:36 PM
xxx
more...
house Audi RS4 prototype
Nagireddi
07-16 04:53 PM
Admin :
This kind of question should be banned. You should have some self-respect and show the same towards your native country. If you know you can do it, whats the point of making it public. Go get it done. Are you asking IV to pay the sum on your behalf also ?
I agree with you strongly, with microfrost. I have heard people talking about their country men are stupid, driving on the wrong side and bla bla...... Comeon guys have some self respect and watch out, when you speak.
Somebody gave you red, I just turnred it to green.
This kind of question should be banned. You should have some self-respect and show the same towards your native country. If you know you can do it, whats the point of making it public. Go get it done. Are you asking IV to pay the sum on your behalf also ?
I agree with you strongly, with microfrost. I have heard people talking about their country men are stupid, driving on the wrong side and bla bla...... Comeon guys have some self respect and watch out, when you speak.
Somebody gave you red, I just turnred it to green.
tattoo 2007 Audi Rs4 Front Three
SunnySurya
08-03 08:32 PM
Looks like they (TSC) are now processing July 3rd onwards. Any July 2nd filler , filled at TSC still waiting. Also do you know if your name check was cleared.
more...
pictures Audi Rs4 2011 Pictures.
amitkhare77
11-17 01:29 PM
Yes you need the I-94 attached with I-797 in order to apply for change of status (H1 to H4). your employer can not keep I-797. Just tell your employer that you need to apply SSN and you need I-797.
Thanks! But if I apply for my own H4, I would require my copy of I797 and the I94 attached to that. My employer doesnt provide me with the copy of those. Would the documents from my husband good enough to apply in US?
Arpu
Thanks! But if I apply for my own H4, I would require my copy of I797 and the I94 attached to that. My employer doesnt provide me with the copy of those. Would the documents from my husband good enough to apply in US?
Arpu
dresses It looks like the RS4 is not
vikki76
09-01 02:04 AM
I was just about to post this article and then saw someone already did this good deed. Apart from core issue of isolation of elderly immigration,this debate between unrestricted family based GC and employment quota will never end.
more...
makeup Audi A4 S Line | Posted on
gccovet
10-20 12:00 PM
Hi
I used AC21 to switch the company. First my new company said I have to use my existing old attorney for my I485 case. So, I asked my old attorney to prepare AC21 documents and mailed to USCIS, which is already done.
But now the attorney from new company is saying that they are again doing AC21 documents and will be sending to USCIS. On top, new attorney is asking me to fill G28 form. Is it necessary to file AC21 document twice or make it too confusing? And this G28 is only for me, not for my wife. I am confused with whole thing. How will this work? with my case transferred to new attorney and my wife's case still with old attorney? I also heard from this new attorney that most of the time G28 and AC21 documents will never reach to USCIS file and in that case, USCIS will communicate with old attorney. On one hand, I have to tell my old attorney that I am changing attorney but on other hand I am not even sure whether USCIS will accept or not. My old attorney has been always helpful and he has all my information and original documents.
Is it advisable to switch attorney when you have I-485 pending? and is this filing of AC21 documents twice necessary or will make more confusion in my case? What is advisable in this situation? What should I say to this new company attorney and what should I say to my old attorney? I am in big dilemma...
Please help. I need your suggestion.
Thanks,
BK
Most of the time people change attorney due to conflit of interest. If your old attorney was hired by your previous employer to do H1 etc stuff, he might have to be loyal to your previous employer.
G28 is a "power of attorney" form. This form will allow your attorney to act/reply on your behalf for legal immigration matters.
GCCovet
I used AC21 to switch the company. First my new company said I have to use my existing old attorney for my I485 case. So, I asked my old attorney to prepare AC21 documents and mailed to USCIS, which is already done.
But now the attorney from new company is saying that they are again doing AC21 documents and will be sending to USCIS. On top, new attorney is asking me to fill G28 form. Is it necessary to file AC21 document twice or make it too confusing? And this G28 is only for me, not for my wife. I am confused with whole thing. How will this work? with my case transferred to new attorney and my wife's case still with old attorney? I also heard from this new attorney that most of the time G28 and AC21 documents will never reach to USCIS file and in that case, USCIS will communicate with old attorney. On one hand, I have to tell my old attorney that I am changing attorney but on other hand I am not even sure whether USCIS will accept or not. My old attorney has been always helpful and he has all my information and original documents.
Is it advisable to switch attorney when you have I-485 pending? and is this filing of AC21 documents twice necessary or will make more confusion in my case? What is advisable in this situation? What should I say to this new company attorney and what should I say to my old attorney? I am in big dilemma...
Please help. I need your suggestion.
Thanks,
BK
Most of the time people change attorney due to conflit of interest. If your old attorney was hired by your previous employer to do H1 etc stuff, he might have to be loyal to your previous employer.
G28 is a "power of attorney" form. This form will allow your attorney to act/reply on your behalf for legal immigration matters.
GCCovet
girlfriend reviews the Audi RS4
RNGC
07-12 01:08 PM
Most people think law suit is a bad thing, but that is not right. In a democratic country law suit is the right way to deal with things. We are legal immigrants, we have all the rights to file a law suit, but with full support of IV.
People have already filed a law suit on the same day the President signed the bill! (yesterday, the wire tapping bill...)
By filing a law suit, all we are trying to do is to fix the laws which are not working. Basically, we are doing the right thing. Not only us, but future Legal immigrants will be benefitted, they don't have to go thru what we had to...
Here are the things that needs to be fixed...
1. Country quota
2. Recapturing visas.
3. 3 year EAD/AP
4. End the endless wait ( Proposing a new law )
5. Remove the same/similar confusion in AC21
What is "End the endless wait" ?
EAD is a very good example, If 90 days have passed after filing EAD, you have the option to go to a local USCIS office and get a temp one. We should have a similar option for all the peper work. For example, each and every stage in green card process should have a a day count for processing. Like name check should be completed in 180 days.
Basically, when we receive any receipt notice, it should have a statement which reads "We have received your application and we will take action within 180 days. If we fail to act by MM-DD-YYYY, Please go to the nearest USCIS for approval.."
Sounds little ambitious ?? well, we are not asking for too much, just a day count. Lets say if the whole Green card process takes 3 years or 10 years based on the day count for each stage, people can decide whether they want to immigrate to USA with a clear idea that it will take x days to become a permanent resident ( like how it works in all other countries except USA)
Even a person jailed gets to know how long he is going to spend his time behind bars, but we do not know when we will be free from this immigration mess!
People have already filed a law suit on the same day the President signed the bill! (yesterday, the wire tapping bill...)
By filing a law suit, all we are trying to do is to fix the laws which are not working. Basically, we are doing the right thing. Not only us, but future Legal immigrants will be benefitted, they don't have to go thru what we had to...
Here are the things that needs to be fixed...
1. Country quota
2. Recapturing visas.
3. 3 year EAD/AP
4. End the endless wait ( Proposing a new law )
5. Remove the same/similar confusion in AC21
What is "End the endless wait" ?
EAD is a very good example, If 90 days have passed after filing EAD, you have the option to go to a local USCIS office and get a temp one. We should have a similar option for all the peper work. For example, each and every stage in green card process should have a a day count for processing. Like name check should be completed in 180 days.
Basically, when we receive any receipt notice, it should have a statement which reads "We have received your application and we will take action within 180 days. If we fail to act by MM-DD-YYYY, Please go to the nearest USCIS for approval.."
Sounds little ambitious ?? well, we are not asking for too much, just a day count. Lets say if the whole Green card process takes 3 years or 10 years based on the day count for each stage, people can decide whether they want to immigrate to USA with a clear idea that it will take x days to become a permanent resident ( like how it works in all other countries except USA)
Even a person jailed gets to know how long he is going to spend his time behind bars, but we do not know when we will be free from this immigration mess!
hairstyles audi rs4 2011 : CarzPage
raysaikat
01-23 12:13 AM
Has anyone of you heard about Nunc Pro Tunc H1B? Will that help in my current situation with a valid and approved LCA?
Nunc pro tunc means a retroactive action normally used to correct past clerical errors. For instance, suppose your birth year is 1978 and in a form you put 1987. You may be able to retroactively correct that, which would be a nunc pro tunc.
Your problem is not a clerical error; you did not file H1-B in the first place and started working. I will be extremely surprised if you can make USCIS accept (what is in essence) a back-dated H1-B petition!
Nunc pro tunc means a retroactive action normally used to correct past clerical errors. For instance, suppose your birth year is 1978 and in a form you put 1987. You may be able to retroactively correct that, which would be a nunc pro tunc.
Your problem is not a clerical error; you did not file H1-B in the first place and started working. I will be extremely surprised if you can make USCIS accept (what is in essence) a back-dated H1-B petition!
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
thomachan72
04-18 12:19 PM
Does your husband currently have a valid H1b visa "STAMPED" in his passport??
0 comments:
Post a Comment