max714
02-22 08:34 PM
I am a July filer and have the option of working for a reputable company as expert consultant for 6 months (initial offer). Yates memo indicates that self-employment is possible. Here is my question: Do we need to register a company to be considered self-employed? As a consultant you may not have a customer for while. Isn't it better to register a company if you want to claim self employment? What are the pros and cons of registering a company?
wallpaper Up Prom Hairstyles 2009
indian111
09-20 02:13 PM
My attorney asked me to send a copy of my GC to make sure the info is correctly printed. Is it ok send it to them?
GIC
01-25 04:24 PM
Anybody used Silvergate Evaluations Inc for educational evaluation? Please post your advice/experience.
Thanks
GIC
Thanks
GIC
2011 2009 Prom Hairstyles - Styles,
.jpg "prom hairstyles updos 2009. 2009 prom hairstyle")
gsiskind
09-11 06:43 PM
Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy: DID JOE WILSON MAKE UP STORY ABOUT PRACTICING IMMIGRATION LAW? (http://tinyurl.com/mhfosd)
more...
10dulkar
08-04 01:13 PM
you are in serious trouble. Don't ask (illeagal)questions on this Pristine forum
Macaca
06-22 06:55 AM
Senate Passes Energy Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html?hpid=topnews) Democrats Prevail; Mileage Standard Would Be Raised By Sholnn Freeman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sholnn+freeman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, June 22, 2007
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
more...
snhn
10-29 05:02 PM
is this true. My mother came back last year using AP but she never got a new I-94. He AP was stamped and the validity of her stay here. So not sure if you will get a I94 or not. please eloborate.
2010 2010 prom hairstyles 2009 long pictures of prom hairstyles 2009.
sepoy321
05-20 05:59 AM
My case
EB-2
I-140 Approved 2008
I-485 pending [ concurrent filing]
Have valid EAD [me and wife] but never used it. Still on H1B and H4 respectively.
I am on second term H1B which expires on Oct-2010.
Project is ending and I have to find new job. Current company applied for EAD renewel last week. But didn't want to spend for H1B renewal since I might change jobs. I am planning to invoke AC21 and shift to similar job. I want to know what is the last date for me to renew/port my H1B ?
My wife used her Advance Parole for travel [but did not use EAD for job], does that mean she is not in H4 anymore ?
Thank you friends. Any advise would be appreciated.
EB-2
I-140 Approved 2008
I-485 pending [ concurrent filing]
Have valid EAD [me and wife] but never used it. Still on H1B and H4 respectively.
I am on second term H1B which expires on Oct-2010.
Project is ending and I have to find new job. Current company applied for EAD renewel last week. But didn't want to spend for H1B renewal since I might change jobs. I am planning to invoke AC21 and shift to similar job. I want to know what is the last date for me to renew/port my H1B ?
My wife used her Advance Parole for travel [but did not use EAD for job], does that mean she is not in H4 anymore ?
Thank you friends. Any advise would be appreciated.
more...
Blog Feeds
06-09 02:10 PM
My friend John Lamb in Nashville blogs today about ICE's Hutto detention center where whole families are jailed while awaiting deportation. I'm reminded of Charles Dickens' tales of debtors prisons in Victorian England where "lawbreakers" who violated British laws relating to debt were jailed right along with their spouses and children. It's hard for me to tell the difference. I don't know that I blame CCA, the contractor that runs the center. Nor do I necessarily blame ICE which is simply carrying out their mission. The country's policymakers carrry responsiblity - senior DHS officials, White House officials, members of Congress,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/is-it-right-to-detain-children.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/is-it-right-to-detain-children.html)
hair prom hairstyles updos 2009. 2009 prom hairstyle
udayak
07-20 05:11 PM
I am also looking for the same information.
Please let me know, how can a person hold
multiple H1's
Thanks
Please let me know, how can a person hold
multiple H1's
Thanks
more...
simple1
05-14 06:40 PM
http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/transparency/web/0905/trans0509whoiscomingtoamerica.jpg
hot Short Prom Hair Styles Fashion
mbe
01-06 11:43 PM
Hi,
My husband is on H1-B, and it expires on Feb 4th 2007. We plan to go to India, leaving the U.S. on Feb 11th 2007. His current I-94 expires on Feb 4th 2007.
We have our I-140 and 485 filed in parallel. He has received his EAD and Advanced Parole.
His lawyer wants to apply for H1-B but not use premium processing, as he can re-enter the U.S. using Advanced Parole.
Now, our concerns are these:
1. If he leaves the U.S. AFTER the expiration of his current I-94 WITHOUT having a new I-797, can it look as if he overstayed?
2. If he re-enters the U.S. using the Advanced Parole, will that change his status so that he is now considered to be on immigrant(EAD) rather than non-immigrant (H1-B) status?
Basically, we want to insist on premium processing and go for the H1-B visa stamp while in India to be sure that he does not go out of status.
Any advice on this?
Thanks :)
My husband is on H1-B, and it expires on Feb 4th 2007. We plan to go to India, leaving the U.S. on Feb 11th 2007. His current I-94 expires on Feb 4th 2007.
We have our I-140 and 485 filed in parallel. He has received his EAD and Advanced Parole.
His lawyer wants to apply for H1-B but not use premium processing, as he can re-enter the U.S. using Advanced Parole.
Now, our concerns are these:
1. If he leaves the U.S. AFTER the expiration of his current I-94 WITHOUT having a new I-797, can it look as if he overstayed?
2. If he re-enters the U.S. using the Advanced Parole, will that change his status so that he is now considered to be on immigrant(EAD) rather than non-immigrant (H1-B) status?
Basically, we want to insist on premium processing and go for the H1-B visa stamp while in India to be sure that he does not go out of status.
Any advice on this?
Thanks :)
more...
house prom hair styles. prom hair
gg_ny
07-18 11:09 AM
I understand that the July VB is reinstated until Aug 17 for new applications for AOS. What happens to AOS applicants of the past? Does this means that the visa numbers are available for restarting processing of those old applications?
Or this reinstatement is restricted only for filing new applications (to abide by INA)? If latter is the case, and earlier option is not viable due to unavailability of visa numbers, then the "current" status (until Aug 17) is not really current, isn't it? Am I understanding this situation correctly?
Or this reinstatement is restricted only for filing new applications (to abide by INA)? If latter is the case, and earlier option is not viable due to unavailability of visa numbers, then the "current" status (until Aug 17) is not really current, isn't it? Am I understanding this situation correctly?
tattoo prom hairstyles and
deardar
06-28 10:08 AM
Folks,
One of my friend needs to get her Educational evaluation done for her H1-transfer. Do you know any one local to Boston ?
any other place is also fine.
thanks
One of my friend needs to get her Educational evaluation done for her H1-transfer. Do you know any one local to Boston ?
any other place is also fine.
thanks
more...
pictures 2009 Prom Hairstyles
cinqsit
04-12 03:51 PM
Yes. Your dependents can go for a H4 visa stamping provided you (primary h1 beneficiary) were always in status. (which from your post looks like you were)
You will have to send your paystubs, latest h1 approval notice etc - with your family for the
h4 visa interview.
cinqsit
You will have to send your paystubs, latest h1 approval notice etc - with your family for the
h4 visa interview.
cinqsit
dresses prom hairstyles with
pappu
01-20 11:10 PM
I am helping!!
Here's how:
[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="4"][SIZE="5"]
Let me know if anyone has any issue accessing this link.
Thanks
Thank you very much!
Every effort will count in this massive task we have undertaken and we are sure to succeed with the help of our members. Thanks.
Here's how:
[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="4"][SIZE="5"]
Let me know if anyone has any issue accessing this link.
Thanks
Thank you very much!
Every effort will count in this massive task we have undertaken and we are sure to succeed with the help of our members. Thanks.
more...
makeup prom hairstyles
LondonTown
10-14 02:51 PM
Check your processing status on-line here:
http://www.pbls.doleta.gov/pbls_pds.cfm
Folks does any one have some info what are the processing times at Dallas and Phili. My LC is pending 2 years. Does anyone have any info what year cases the Dallas and Phili are processing.
Thanks much
http://www.pbls.doleta.gov/pbls_pds.cfm
Folks does any one have some info what are the processing times at Dallas and Phili. My LC is pending 2 years. Does anyone have any info what year cases the Dallas and Phili are processing.
Thanks much
girlfriend 2009 prom hairstyles
krishna_brc
06-25 01:30 PM
~~~please advise~~~
hairstyles prom hairstyles for short hair
sanjay
09-28 03:24 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ace7ec20cfbd4110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=82b06a9fec745110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
Thanks for update.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=82b06a9fec745110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
Thanks for update.
jonty_11
07-19 05:09 PM
please post articles in News Article thread..
jonty_11
06-21 05:23 PM
You will get RFE from USCIS if u have not taken all necessary veccinations.and u will have to take them then...
No comments:
Post a Comment