flipizam
06-02 09:08 AM
Greetings! :sonic:
Microsoft XNA is a popular framework applied with C# that is being used to create quality games. My thesis group decided to use the said framework for our thesis which required us to develop a game. The game automatically logs the actions that the players perform while playing. The data that will be gathered is to be used for our research which is mainly about player modeling. It would really help us in our thesis if you'd play the game. Thank you!
You can download the game here: http://ccs.dlsu.edu.ph:8086/cutanksweb/
Microsoft XNA is a popular framework applied with C# that is being used to create quality games. My thesis group decided to use the said framework for our thesis which required us to develop a game. The game automatically logs the actions that the players perform while playing. The data that will be gathered is to be used for our research which is mainly about player modeling. It would really help us in our thesis if you'd play the game. Thank you!
You can download the game here: http://ccs.dlsu.edu.ph:8086/cutanksweb/
wallpaper Easy Short Hairstyles 2011
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
TheHulk
11-30 08:16 PM
Hi,
My spouse was on H1, the applied for H4 which was approved but he start date was incorrect, so an I102 was applied to get the I-94 corrected , we got the dates incorrect again so the lawyer applied for correct of dates again (October 2010)
In the mean time, we had a family emergency and my wife had to go to India , She went on a valid AdvanceParole. ( We have a pending 485 , so got an AP also)
Today we received a mail from USCIS, asking her to attend an interview regarding this I-94 replacement.
. She is not in US
. She submitted all the I94 cards she had at the Aiport
1. Will she have any problem coming back. She was always on Status. NO issues there
2. Is there any way to postpone the interview ?
3. Does it affect my I-485
4. What is the best course of action
Thanks and rgds
My spouse was on H1, the applied for H4 which was approved but he start date was incorrect, so an I102 was applied to get the I-94 corrected , we got the dates incorrect again so the lawyer applied for correct of dates again (October 2010)
In the mean time, we had a family emergency and my wife had to go to India , She went on a valid AdvanceParole. ( We have a pending 485 , so got an AP also)
Today we received a mail from USCIS, asking her to attend an interview regarding this I-94 replacement.
. She is not in US
. She submitted all the I94 cards she had at the Aiport
1. Will she have any problem coming back. She was always on Status. NO issues there
2. Is there any way to postpone the interview ?
3. Does it affect my I-485
4. What is the best course of action
Thanks and rgds
2011 new short hair styles
frost_oni
04-16 09:46 AM
wow, nice....i love akira!!!!
more...
Blog Feeds
12-01 09:00 AM
From UPI: U.S. Latinos, feeling neglected by both parties, are discussing forming an independent "Tequila Party" force, leaders say. "I don't know if it's going to happen, but there's talk," Fernando Romero, president of Nevada's Hispanics in Politics, told the Las Vegas Sun. "There's discussion about empowerment of the Latino vote." The idea, being debated in Nevada and around the country, stems from frustration over the Democrats' inaction on immigration reform and feelings of being taken for granted. While I wouldn't put too much credence in this happening any time soon, it does raise the point that Latinos expect more...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/warning-to-dems-latinos-could-form-new-political-party.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/warning-to-dems-latinos-could-form-new-political-party.html)
Knicker
02-09 03:54 PM
Hi
I came to US on L1 in 2005 thru COMPANY-A and then applied for H1B thru COMPANY-B in 2006 and got approval under 2007 CAP. But I didn't start working for COMPANY-B(H1B) and went to India after H1B approval but came to US on L1B again to continue my work with COMPANY-A(Did a leapfrog).
In 2009 I transferred my H1B from COMPANY-B to COMPANY-C and got the petition approval. So I have a valid H1B petition with COMPANY-C.
In the same year my COMPANY-A(L1B holder) applied for COS to H1B under new 2010 CAP and got approval. So my status has been changed from L1 to H1B with COMPANY-A.
Now I have 2 approved valid petitions, one with COMPANY-A and the other with COMPANY-C, my question is if I get an offer from COMPANY-C can I start working with them with out any H1 transfer application ?
or can I transfer my H1B from COMPANY-C to another COMPANY-D ?
Thanks for your help,
Nick.
I came to US on L1 in 2005 thru COMPANY-A and then applied for H1B thru COMPANY-B in 2006 and got approval under 2007 CAP. But I didn't start working for COMPANY-B(H1B) and went to India after H1B approval but came to US on L1B again to continue my work with COMPANY-A(Did a leapfrog).
In 2009 I transferred my H1B from COMPANY-B to COMPANY-C and got the petition approval. So I have a valid H1B petition with COMPANY-C.
In the same year my COMPANY-A(L1B holder) applied for COS to H1B under new 2010 CAP and got approval. So my status has been changed from L1 to H1B with COMPANY-A.
Now I have 2 approved valid petitions, one with COMPANY-A and the other with COMPANY-C, my question is if I get an offer from COMPANY-C can I start working with them with out any H1 transfer application ?
or can I transfer my H1B from COMPANY-C to another COMPANY-D ?
Thanks for your help,
Nick.
more...
nf462
01-25 08:51 PM
I count myself as one of the lucky ones as I already have a GC for the last two years and enjoy working in the US. However, my company has offered me a position in Europe for three years and I was wondering how this would affect my green card status. Can I put it on "hold"? If so, is it easy. Any feedback would be appreciated.
thanks,
Tom
thanks,
Tom
2010 best short haircuts 2011 for
kirupa
07-16 07:22 AM
Hello Drew,
I have not found many sites that go beyond the basics of Swift 3D such as mine (www.kirupa.com/developer/...ndex.htm). (http://www.kirupa.com/developer/swift/index.htm).) I found 3 tutorials regarding Swift 3D on Flashkit: www.flashkit.com/cgi-bin/...y=swift+3d (http://www.flashkit.com/cgi-bin/tutorials/search.cgi?all=0&query=swift+3d)
I have not found many sites that go beyond the basics of Swift 3D such as mine (www.kirupa.com/developer/...ndex.htm). (http://www.kirupa.com/developer/swift/index.htm).) I found 3 tutorials regarding Swift 3D on Flashkit: www.flashkit.com/cgi-bin/...y=swift+3d (http://www.flashkit.com/cgi-bin/tutorials/search.cgi?all=0&query=swift+3d)
more...
days_go_by
08-01 02:53 PM
I am on 6th year and need to extend my h1b. My lawyer informs me that 45day letter from Backlog center is enough for 7th year extension.
I thought we need to get the screen-shot of pending labor as a proof for 7th year extension.
Does anyone got extension based on 45day letter for the 7th year or beyond....???
Thanks
.
---
it should be enough,
I thought we need to get the screen-shot of pending labor as a proof for 7th year extension.
Does anyone got extension based on 45day letter for the 7th year or beyond....???
Thanks
.
---
it should be enough,
hair Cute Short Curly Hairstyle
ajitskhare
06-11 06:09 PM
My lawyer notified that he has received an RFE for incorrect info on the I-485 Biographic info form. The last entry in the "last 5 years in the US" address list contains a start date of when i was not even in the US. Apparently his assistant goofed up with a typo. He is recommending that i prepare a signed affadavit explaining to the CIS that it was an honest mistake. Would that be enough? Can the G-325 be resubmitted ?
Thanks!
Thanks!
more...
praveen2008
04-26 04:44 PM
Hello All,
I am currently working for Employer A for the past 6 years and my current H1 is Expiring in May End 2010. MY employer says he will file the H1 in may starting. In the meantime I got an offer from a future employer B who applied for my H1 transfer in premium processing. We got an RFE and the new employer is working on that .
My question is that lets say After responding to RFE by my future employer B , god forbid say the H1 transfer is denied. Would this denial have any impact on the H1 Extension that my current employer A plans to file in couple of weeks using I-140 approved petition. Please advice ?
Thanks,
I am currently working for Employer A for the past 6 years and my current H1 is Expiring in May End 2010. MY employer says he will file the H1 in may starting. In the meantime I got an offer from a future employer B who applied for my H1 transfer in premium processing. We got an RFE and the new employer is working on that .
My question is that lets say After responding to RFE by my future employer B , god forbid say the H1 transfer is denied. Would this denial have any impact on the H1 Extension that my current employer A plans to file in couple of weeks using I-140 approved petition. Please advice ?
Thanks,
hot long and short Hairstyles
Lmason
08-02 05:44 AM
i like it
more...
house Short hairstyle is cut for
sunny1000
06-04 06:04 PM
This is my third EAD renewal. My 485 is pending at NSC. I am in CA. All my previous EADs/APs etc were filed at NSC.
This time when my EAD renewal is filed (by my new attorney, in new company) I got receipt Number starting with MSC.
Who decides where to file MSC? What's the criteria to file at MSC? Shouldn't it be file at NSC?
Is this a mistake?
No it is not. It is the National Benefits Center receipt number. Mine got transferred from the TSC.
This time when my EAD renewal is filed (by my new attorney, in new company) I got receipt Number starting with MSC.
Who decides where to file MSC? What's the criteria to file at MSC? Shouldn't it be file at NSC?
Is this a mistake?
No it is not. It is the National Benefits Center receipt number. Mine got transferred from the TSC.
tattoo 2010 cute short haircuts
biggest_apple
05-01 02:00 PM
Decided to use a couple of shots from my photoblog.
more...
pictures modern short hairstyles
ras
07-19 03:13 PM
If am not wrong, I think Attorney Prashanthi is from NYC/New Jersy area. Check and confirm for yourself www.reddyesq.com (http://www.reddyesq.com)
She is one of the attorneys who answers questions on IV.
She is one of the attorneys who answers questions on IV.
dresses and easy short hairstyles
ChainReaction
02-01 10:15 AM
Not sure if increase in immigration fee will make GC processing faster.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14379279
Yes, it will definitely make the GC processing faster but only for Agriculture/ illegal workers...we pay they benefit. :D :D :D
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14379279
Yes, it will definitely make the GC processing faster but only for Agriculture/ illegal workers...we pay they benefit. :D :D :D
more...
makeup hair short haircuts 2011.
ishreeram
03-13 08:04 AM
If you don't file a G-28 alongwith your renewal, it's implied that you are renewing without a lawyer.
girlfriend short hair styles 2011 for
H1gameover
06-17 02:20 PM
Hi Friends...
One article to share with u who are still waiting from any update from USCIS.....I am one of them too....
http://www.employerlawreport.com/2008/06/articles/immigration/uscis-to-start-mailing-rejection-notices-for-april-1-2008-h1b-filings/
Article says "On June 12, 2008, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) informed the American Immigration Lawyers Association that the H-1B random selection process has been completed. USCIS completed the intake and receipt processes for all filings as of May 24, 2008 and began mailing rejection notices the week of June 9. Therefore, if an employer has not yet received a filing confirmation (Form I-797C Notice of Action), it likely means that the petition was not selected in the random process and that the rejection notice will be forthcoming."
My hope is over now...All the best to all who r lucky.
One article to share with u who are still waiting from any update from USCIS.....I am one of them too....
http://www.employerlawreport.com/2008/06/articles/immigration/uscis-to-start-mailing-rejection-notices-for-april-1-2008-h1b-filings/
Article says "On June 12, 2008, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) informed the American Immigration Lawyers Association that the H-1B random selection process has been completed. USCIS completed the intake and receipt processes for all filings as of May 24, 2008 and began mailing rejection notices the week of June 9. Therefore, if an employer has not yet received a filing confirmation (Form I-797C Notice of Action), it likely means that the petition was not selected in the random process and that the rejection notice will be forthcoming."
My hope is over now...All the best to all who r lucky.
hairstyles short haircuts
vadik78
06-14 09:33 AM
I have filed my i-485 application with Vermont Service Center sometimes in 2003 or 2004 (do not remember, was a long time ago). The case was transferred to Texas Service Center in March 2007.
I just spoke to the USCIS customer service, and they told me that once case is transferred, the "receipt" date changes to the transfer date. So, due to the "improved service within the TX center" (as USCIS claims), all people who were waiting for adjustment of status and were transferred to the TX are screwed again. On the other hand, people who filed with the TX service center in 2006 retain their original "receipt" date.
:mad:
P.S. my priority date was current for the past 2 months, however there is still no GC in sight.
I just spoke to the USCIS customer service, and they told me that once case is transferred, the "receipt" date changes to the transfer date. So, due to the "improved service within the TX center" (as USCIS claims), all people who were waiting for adjustment of status and were transferred to the TX are screwed again. On the other hand, people who filed with the TX service center in 2006 retain their original "receipt" date.
:mad:
P.S. my priority date was current for the past 2 months, however there is still no GC in sight.
ak_manu
11-17 03:27 PM
Hello All,
I have my EAD from Employer A. I have accepted fulltime offer from Employer B. I do not wish to file AC21 but would like to send G28 form to USCIS to change the representation so that I could recieve any queries from USCIS. My question is -
1. Would it be advisable to pick a attorney and ask him to file G28 so he could get any communications from USCIS.
OR
2. Would it be ok if I file G28 so I could get any communications from USCIS. Later, in case When I need to respond may be I could hire an attorney to respond to the query.
3. Also does not making address change in AR 11 automatically make the address change on all my cases like 485,EAD,AP etc? I am asking this because only AP and EAD are sent to me with address change but last query on 485 went to my attorney's address.
Also appreciate any of your advice to handle my case effectively after changing my employer.
Thanks
AK_MANU
I have my EAD from Employer A. I have accepted fulltime offer from Employer B. I do not wish to file AC21 but would like to send G28 form to USCIS to change the representation so that I could recieve any queries from USCIS. My question is -
1. Would it be advisable to pick a attorney and ask him to file G28 so he could get any communications from USCIS.
OR
2. Would it be ok if I file G28 so I could get any communications from USCIS. Later, in case When I need to respond may be I could hire an attorney to respond to the query.
3. Also does not making address change in AR 11 automatically make the address change on all my cases like 485,EAD,AP etc? I am asking this because only AP and EAD are sent to me with address change but last query on 485 went to my attorney's address.
Also appreciate any of your advice to handle my case effectively after changing my employer.
Thanks
AK_MANU
skdskd
08-30 06:28 PM
Mr Lou Dobbs is again denying the facts
Please go to this link.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Please go to this link.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
No comments:
Post a Comment