Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
wallpaper cyber goth hairstyles. cyber
raysaikat
08-03 04:54 PM
Hi,
We filed a dependent I-485 for my wife while she is on a F1 status. She has a EAD card (but my I-140 is pending). My understanding is that once she finishes school, she will not be able to get an OPT. Does it mean that she can accept employment using the EAD even though the I-140 is not approved?
Yes.
In case my I-140 is denied, will she lose her status and would have to leave the country?
Thanks. Yes.
We filed a dependent I-485 for my wife while she is on a F1 status. She has a EAD card (but my I-140 is pending). My understanding is that once she finishes school, she will not be able to get an OPT. Does it mean that she can accept employment using the EAD even though the I-140 is not approved?
Yes.
In case my I-140 is denied, will she lose her status and would have to leave the country?
Thanks. Yes.
pussyket
11-10 03:37 PM
Hi,
I have been married to a US Citizen for more than 6 years and my green card was issued 5years ago. My green card was issued thru marriage. On the N-400 application form for citizenship what should I use as my eligibility? marriage or being a lawful permanent resident for at least 5 years? Thanks :)
I have been married to a US Citizen for more than 6 years and my green card was issued 5years ago. My green card was issued thru marriage. On the N-400 application form for citizenship what should I use as my eligibility? marriage or being a lawful permanent resident for at least 5 years? Thanks :)
2011 house Cut (Gothic Hairstyles)
gocool
10-14 08:51 PM
Hi,
I had a question regarding employment in OPT STEM extension. I recently(one week back) got a job and joined as a independent contractor(adding me as a vendor to company and at the time of joining they asked me to fill W-9 form) in company. I was joined first and thought of ask them to enroll in E-verify later.
But couple of days back when I ask the HR for company to enroll in E-Verify in order to update to school officials. HR refuses to enroll because as I was working as an independent contractor and not coming under their payroll.
Regarding how do I get paid? They will pay me bi-weekly. But I need to rise the invoice and submit time sheet and give it to them so that they will pay me a payable check.
And even I got approved OPT STEM extension couple of days back which I was applied through my previous employer.
Is there a way to come out of this situation?
Even thinking of adding a consulting firm layer in between the company and me but I don't want to do that. Please help me out.
I had a question regarding employment in OPT STEM extension. I recently(one week back) got a job and joined as a independent contractor(adding me as a vendor to company and at the time of joining they asked me to fill W-9 form) in company. I was joined first and thought of ask them to enroll in E-verify later.
But couple of days back when I ask the HR for company to enroll in E-Verify in order to update to school officials. HR refuses to enroll because as I was working as an independent contractor and not coming under their payroll.
Regarding how do I get paid? They will pay me bi-weekly. But I need to rise the invoice and submit time sheet and give it to them so that they will pay me a payable check.
And even I got approved OPT STEM extension couple of days back which I was applied through my previous employer.
Is there a way to come out of this situation?
Even thinking of adding a consulting firm layer in between the company and me but I don't want to do that. Please help me out.
more...
GCBy3000
07-27 09:33 PM
Good if this works out.
SlowRoasted
05-01 10:13 PM
nice, i knew a matrix one was coming eventually.
more...
diphen0608
02-01 10:05 PM
Hey... just wondering... how do you create your own anims? I am new. So... if there is a way... or if there is a place where I can get some?
.m.e.h.
//funkmaster
.m.e.h.
//funkmaster
2010 Gothic Blue Black Hair
fishingshu
06-17 02:30 PM
How's this guy's reputation? I made an appointment with him for 485 physical. Read some horrible stories here about skin test and X-ray, hence the question.
Thanks,
Thanks,
more...
ferozmd
10-31 02:42 PM
You cannot file 485. You will have to start the process from scratch. However, you can use the priority date from the approved 140.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
hair Various of Asian Hairstyles
GCwaitforever
09-07 01:30 PM
Personally I agree with you. On the other hand, there could be some folks who like this sh*t. :D :D It is just an FYI for them.;)
more...
clif
10-07 07:13 PM
I am EB2-India and my priority date (End-April 2006) is current since the beginning of September 2010. My case was transferred from Texas center to Newark, NJ in 2008. I haven't heard anything from the Newark office since my date becoming current and it's over a month now. Is this normal? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
hot Goth Hairstyle; Goth Hairstyle
addsf345
11-19 12:50 AM
push and pull, and i finally decided to exercise my AC21 rights.....
AC21 pioneers, any recommendations on picking lawyers around NYC? specifically those that are fairly responsive and charge a fair price on all the procedures / docs that come with maintaining AOS, including a possible AC21 notification letter, renewing EAD/APs....
thank you for any guidances.
Bro, checkout this Thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22261).
AC21 pioneers, any recommendations on picking lawyers around NYC? specifically those that are fairly responsive and charge a fair price on all the procedures / docs that come with maintaining AOS, including a possible AC21 notification letter, renewing EAD/APs....
thank you for any guidances.
Bro, checkout this Thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22261).
more...
house in order to achieve their gothic hairstyle. Purple and green are other
Macaca
11-01 05:36 PM
Democrats Again Look to Change GOP Motions; After Defeats, Leaders Studying Ways to Neuter Republicans' Motions to Recommit (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_52/news/20763-1.html) By Jennifer Yachnin | ROLL CALL STAFF, October 31, 2007
Exasperated over Republicans' continued efforts - and occasional success - in thwarting the House floor schedule, Democratic leaders acknowledged Tuesday they are reviewing the chamber's rules to determine how to curb the minority's ability to put up roadblocks at critical moments in the legislative process.
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D) said the committee's Democrats have begun meeting with both current and former Parliamentarians to discuss the chamber's rules and potential changes.
The New York lawmaker said those discussions have focused in part on the motion to recommit - one of the few procedural items in the minority party's toolbox that allows them to offer legislative alternatives when a bill hits the floor, and that Republicans have used to force difficult votes on Democrats or prompted legislation to be pulled from the floor - as well as other procedures, which she declined to detail.
Slaughter said no timeline exists for the review or potential alterations, however. "Nothing is imminent. We want to take our time and do it right," she said.
But one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the majority is considering neutering the motion-to-recommit process and converting it to little more than a last-chance amendment for the minority party.
Under current House rules, the minority's motion can effectively shelve legislation through minor alterations to the language of their motion - specifically designating for a bill to be returned to its committee "promptly," rather than the usual "forthwith."
Republican leaders have used that strategy to force Democrats to either vote against measures they would otherwise support or vote to kill their own bill. Earlier this month, the GOP used that procedure to target a bill governing federal wiretapping and surveillance programs, prompting Democrats to scrub an expected vote.
Another Democratic lawmaker, who also is familiar with discussions and asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of those conversations, said that is only one option under consideration.
"We don't want to limit the minority's ability to have legitimate motions to recommit," the Democrat said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) railed against Republicans' use of that particular tactic at his weekly press conference Tuesday, echoing complaints Democrats have raised off-and-on since March.
"The Republicans continue to use the motion to recommit for political purposes, not substantive purposes. Substantive purposes would be trying to change policy. For the most part, what they do with their motions to recommit are not change policy, but try to construct difficult political votes for Members," Hoyer said. "We understand that. To some degree, we did that as well. So it is not surprising."
While Hoyer acknowledged that Democrats had at times employed the same approach in the past, he criticized Republicans for using the method 22 times thus far in the 110th Congress, asserting that Democrats used the tactic only four times between 1995 and 1998.
"This is a game. It is a relatively cynical game," Hoyer added. "That doesn't mean it is not an effective game and causes questions. So we are trying to deal with that."
Democrats earlier had sought to alter the House rules on motions to recommit in May - an unusual step, given that the chamber's rules are rarely reopened mid-session - but Republicans rebelled on the House floor, and Democratic leaders agreed to forgo the changes, at least temporarily.
Democratic leaders suggested in August that they planned to offer legislation on the House floor aimed at dissuading Republicans from offering contentious procedural amendments tied to such hot-button issues as immigration. At the same time, Democrats hoped to provide insulation to their own Members with a separate vote on those topics, but have yet to produce any such resolutions.
Republicans have succeeded in winning 21 motions to recommit - the majority of which would not shelve the legislation they amend - in the past 10 months, a point that President Bush praised in a Tuesday meeting at the White House with Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), according to a GOP aide.
"Republicans and Democrats alike have lived under the very same germaneness rules since 1822, and changing them won't solve the majority's inherent inability to govern," Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy said. "This isn't a question of rules, it's one of competence."
Exasperated over Republicans' continued efforts - and occasional success - in thwarting the House floor schedule, Democratic leaders acknowledged Tuesday they are reviewing the chamber's rules to determine how to curb the minority's ability to put up roadblocks at critical moments in the legislative process.
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D) said the committee's Democrats have begun meeting with both current and former Parliamentarians to discuss the chamber's rules and potential changes.
The New York lawmaker said those discussions have focused in part on the motion to recommit - one of the few procedural items in the minority party's toolbox that allows them to offer legislative alternatives when a bill hits the floor, and that Republicans have used to force difficult votes on Democrats or prompted legislation to be pulled from the floor - as well as other procedures, which she declined to detail.
Slaughter said no timeline exists for the review or potential alterations, however. "Nothing is imminent. We want to take our time and do it right," she said.
But one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the majority is considering neutering the motion-to-recommit process and converting it to little more than a last-chance amendment for the minority party.
Under current House rules, the minority's motion can effectively shelve legislation through minor alterations to the language of their motion - specifically designating for a bill to be returned to its committee "promptly," rather than the usual "forthwith."
Republican leaders have used that strategy to force Democrats to either vote against measures they would otherwise support or vote to kill their own bill. Earlier this month, the GOP used that procedure to target a bill governing federal wiretapping and surveillance programs, prompting Democrats to scrub an expected vote.
Another Democratic lawmaker, who also is familiar with discussions and asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of those conversations, said that is only one option under consideration.
"We don't want to limit the minority's ability to have legitimate motions to recommit," the Democrat said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) railed against Republicans' use of that particular tactic at his weekly press conference Tuesday, echoing complaints Democrats have raised off-and-on since March.
"The Republicans continue to use the motion to recommit for political purposes, not substantive purposes. Substantive purposes would be trying to change policy. For the most part, what they do with their motions to recommit are not change policy, but try to construct difficult political votes for Members," Hoyer said. "We understand that. To some degree, we did that as well. So it is not surprising."
While Hoyer acknowledged that Democrats had at times employed the same approach in the past, he criticized Republicans for using the method 22 times thus far in the 110th Congress, asserting that Democrats used the tactic only four times between 1995 and 1998.
"This is a game. It is a relatively cynical game," Hoyer added. "That doesn't mean it is not an effective game and causes questions. So we are trying to deal with that."
Democrats earlier had sought to alter the House rules on motions to recommit in May - an unusual step, given that the chamber's rules are rarely reopened mid-session - but Republicans rebelled on the House floor, and Democratic leaders agreed to forgo the changes, at least temporarily.
Democratic leaders suggested in August that they planned to offer legislation on the House floor aimed at dissuading Republicans from offering contentious procedural amendments tied to such hot-button issues as immigration. At the same time, Democrats hoped to provide insulation to their own Members with a separate vote on those topics, but have yet to produce any such resolutions.
Republicans have succeeded in winning 21 motions to recommit - the majority of which would not shelve the legislation they amend - in the past 10 months, a point that President Bush praised in a Tuesday meeting at the White House with Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), according to a GOP aide.
"Republicans and Democrats alike have lived under the very same germaneness rules since 1822, and changing them won't solve the majority's inherent inability to govern," Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy said. "This isn't a question of rules, it's one of competence."
tattoo Easy gothic hairstyle: black, long, straight
Blog Feeds
01-05 08:10 AM
The big news is that the masters cap was hit as of December 24th. I had been predicting since last summer that this 20,000 quota would be hit in the last week of the year and the pace of usage stayed extremely consistent. The general quota has 7,700 visas of 65,000 remaining as of December 31st and the rolling four week average is now running at just over 1500. We have seen a modest up tick in usage since the masters cap ran out, but not as much as might be expected. It looks like we've got five to six...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/01/h-1b-exhaustion-target-february-7-2011.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/01/h-1b-exhaustion-target-february-7-2011.html)
more...
pictures Trendy Short Haircuts
Blog Feeds
07-13 12:48 PM
Israeli-born Gadi Amit heads up New Deal Design, a design firm that has collaborated with many of America's best known companies to bring products that are not only memorable for their functions, but also for their look. His latest creation is the Fitbit, a fitness product that is like a pedometer on steroids. He was also responsible for the memorable look of the Slingbox. Browse around on the New Deal Design web site if you want to see some very cool looking products. Amit is also a blogger for Fast Company Magazine, a publication I read regularly. You can read...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-gadi-amit-product-designer.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-gadi-amit-product-designer.html)
dresses how gothic hairstyles such
GSB
09-13 12:10 PM
Please see this letter sent by governors of 13 states to the Senate and Congress on 09-11-07.
http://shusterman.com/pdf/h1b-governors.pdf
http://shusterman.com/pdf/h1b-governors.pdf
more...
makeup Short Gothic Hairstyles
KIWI
06-13 01:53 AM
is this possible?
I cant figure out how to insert keyframes! [i assume swift 3D uses keyframes] and grrrrrr I cant do it :(
plz help me!!!
I cant figure out how to insert keyframes! [i assume swift 3D uses keyframes] and grrrrrr I cant do it :(
plz help me!!!
girlfriend makeup gothic hairstyle was
trump_gc
02-05 11:39 AM
Current VISA availability date is 01AUG02. So u r looking at 5-9 yrs ,,may be worse, or may be even better with any law comin in
hairstyles 2010 long goth hairstyles
demrep
03-25 11:58 AM
Hi,
I got my labor approved couple of weeks back and now attorney is filing I-140. My situation is
Job 1 : Worked from July 1st 2006 to Oct 2nd 2007 (Laid off on that date and h1b was not cancelled ever after)
so applied for h1 transfer immediately, USCIS received application on Oct 9th 2007 (Regular processing)
While I was waiting on that, I got another fulltime job in Nov, Applied for h1 through this company (Premium processing) and got approval within a week, started working from Nov 15th 2007 to till date..
In Decemeber 2007, I got approval for pending H1b from 2nd compnay too.. but never used as i was already working for Company 3.
So, In my labor requirement it was M.S. and 1 yr relevant experience, Labor approval showing employemnt history as
Job 1 : July 1 2006 to Oct 2 2007
Current Job : Nov 15th 2007 to till date
Is it a problem if it shows 1 month gap between these two jobs?
Appreciate your time
I got my labor approved couple of weeks back and now attorney is filing I-140. My situation is
Job 1 : Worked from July 1st 2006 to Oct 2nd 2007 (Laid off on that date and h1b was not cancelled ever after)
so applied for h1 transfer immediately, USCIS received application on Oct 9th 2007 (Regular processing)
While I was waiting on that, I got another fulltime job in Nov, Applied for h1 through this company (Premium processing) and got approval within a week, started working from Nov 15th 2007 to till date..
In Decemeber 2007, I got approval for pending H1b from 2nd compnay too.. but never used as i was already working for Company 3.
So, In my labor requirement it was M.S. and 1 yr relevant experience, Labor approval showing employemnt history as
Job 1 : July 1 2006 to Oct 2 2007
Current Job : Nov 15th 2007 to till date
Is it a problem if it shows 1 month gap between these two jobs?
Appreciate your time
gimmeacard
09-08 11:52 PM
Hello
i got CPO emails for spouse and self today, I am PD April 06 EB2
I had filed my prior applicaiton in EB3 with 485, Later i joined new firmB around august 2007 timeframe. and they started off again using old PD and ported to EB2, which was granted,
my new company filed for my 485 again as they thought it was right around when i moved and could raise RFE
I got an email today my CPO ordered, using 485# of prior filing
what should i do, tell USCIS or talk to lawyers, i dont want this to cause a denial
( I never used EAD or so, always on H1)
__________________
EB2 April 2006
i got CPO emails for spouse and self today, I am PD April 06 EB2
I had filed my prior applicaiton in EB3 with 485, Later i joined new firmB around august 2007 timeframe. and they started off again using old PD and ported to EB2, which was granted,
my new company filed for my 485 again as they thought it was right around when i moved and could raise RFE
I got an email today my CPO ordered, using 485# of prior filing
what should i do, tell USCIS or talk to lawyers, i dont want this to cause a denial
( I never used EAD or so, always on H1)
__________________
EB2 April 2006
netfood
07-13 07:36 PM
I had L1A from 10/2005 to 10/2008. My lawyer filed I-485 in 2008, but he did not file extension of L1A. My L1A is expired in 2008. In Jan. 2010, my I-485 was denied. We filed appeal in Feb.. Then, we filed L1A extension, which is denied in June 2010. I do not know what to do? I have been in here for five years. now my wife and child's L2 also expired. Can I file another L1A without leaving USA (I was told no, because I did not meet 1/3 requirement, one year abroad within three years of admission into the USA. I have to go back Jamaca for one year and refile there, but I would give up my I-485). Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment