ameerka_dream
03-30 09:40 AM
^^^^^^^^^^bump^^^^^^^^^^
wallpaper H.G. Wells - A Biography
helmet
07-25 10:42 AM
Is any one got receipt of 485filing on july 2nd? Please post the status like checks are cashed, receipt,retuns etc.
Scythe
10-15 07:37 PM
I'm sure some poor forum member had that idea and now isn't gonna submit it because of this :grin:
They probably thought they'd win too.
They probably thought they'd win too.
2011 H.G. Wells: Biography And
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...
bkarnik
04-04 11:56 AM
Can you provide a link to the bulletin?
Any comments abt the dates?
Any comments abt the dates?
smuggymba
09-18 12:48 PM
who will take care of the elderly parents in India? Since you're US citizen, u can apply GC for ur parents also. It's tough to leave ur old parents in India and just worry about a good lifestyle for the brother. None of my business but just a thought.
more...
mhssatya
02-15 01:26 PM
hi there,
i'm planning to bring my in-laws to USA and they have their visitor visa appointment next week. everything is set but i'm a littled worried about demonstrating financial stability to sponsor them.
i have paystubs & employment letter but the bank letter doesn't look so good. i live on check-to-check and my current balance is around 3K. you think i should take chance and go for the interview and hope VO doesn't ask for bank letter or doesn't mind the balance?
please help. any feedback is greatly appreciated.
satya
i'm planning to bring my in-laws to USA and they have their visitor visa appointment next week. everything is set but i'm a littled worried about demonstrating financial stability to sponsor them.
i have paystubs & employment letter but the bank letter doesn't look so good. i live on check-to-check and my current balance is around 3K. you think i should take chance and go for the interview and hope VO doesn't ask for bank letter or doesn't mind the balance?
please help. any feedback is greatly appreciated.
satya
2010 H G Wells Biography: wells
glus
12-18 09:17 AM
Short term disability usually is not considered a Public Charge. This is because they are usually carried by private insurance or state agencies and not federal ones. However, I would check if one can claim SDI under CA law if one is not a Permanent Resident or a U.S. Citizen.
more...
cdeneo
05-14 04:25 PM
Valid AP is enough to travel - no one should care about your EAD if you are entering based on your AP. Ofcourse, always carry a copy of the I-485 and your wife can say that you are the primary applicant if they ask for her work status, etc...
Traveling with an AP (w/o EAD) should not be an issue. Good luck!
Traveling with an AP (w/o EAD) should not be an issue. Good luck!
hair smooth-writing H.G. Wells
Blog Feeds
02-15 01:00 PM
Remember, the worse the grade, the more we love 'em. And where's Jeb Bush? He'd definitely get a D-. Thanks NUSA for making it easy for the pro-immigration folks as well.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/02/numbers-usa-grades-2012-presidential-hopefuls.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/02/numbers-usa-grades-2012-presidential-hopefuls.html)
more...
thomachan72
03-09 11:00 AM
No change in this one.:D:D
hot h. g. wells biography.
keepwalking
05-14 05:55 PM
My priority date will become current on June 1st 2011. I will add my wife to green card process on June 1st 2011 (she is in US in H-4 status now). My I-485 is with Texas processing Center.
If I leave my sponsoring (green card) employer after 3-4 months of getting my green card and join another employer or have my own company, does it affect my wife's green card that may be still in process
If I leave my sponsoring (green card) employer after 3-4 months of getting my green card and join another employer or have my own company, does it affect my wife's green card that may be still in process
more...
house By H.G. WELLS WELLS, H.G.
sharma258
09-27 02:00 PM
Hi All,
This is my scenario.
1) I have an approved I-140 from my future employer company and the priority date is may-2003 (EB3).
11) I have filed my 485 and 140 concurrently in august EB2 category from my current employer. The priority date of my labor is nov-2006.
Please provide me your guidance can i use my approved 140 PD (may-2003) in my filled 485.
Thanks
This is my scenario.
1) I have an approved I-140 from my future employer company and the priority date is may-2003 (EB3).
11) I have filed my 485 and 140 concurrently in august EB2 category from my current employer. The priority date of my labor is nov-2006.
Please provide me your guidance can i use my approved 140 PD (may-2003) in my filled 485.
Thanks
tattoo H. G. Wells was born in 1866
boldm28
06-13 12:20 PM
Thanks appreciate it
more...
pictures Penciled Portrait of H.G.Wells
xtronics
11-11 09:56 AM
Ok. After my lawyers call, they corrected her name. The "a" is still missing from my name though. She thinks it won't be a problem at the port of entry.Hope she is right
dresses HG Wells broadcasting for the
andy.thorne
08-02 09:09 AM
I'm not sure, I just read about it online so I thought I'd have a go. I've only been visiting Kirupa for the past couple of days.
more...
makeup H. G. Wells: A Biography. CHEAP,Discount,Buy,Sale,Bestsellers,Good,For
Blog Feeds
03-31 12:40 PM
USCIS has not extended its temporary accommodation for delays in the labor condition application (LCA) process. Earlier, USCIS agreed to accept H-1B petitions without a certified LCA, in certain situations, for a limited time. This exception was available from November 5, 2009 to March 9, 2010. The USCIS has declined to extend this exception. Accordingly, all H-1B petitions must be filed with the certified LCA otherwise USCIS will deny the H-1B petition or extension.
Hence, it again is necessary to have an Approved LCA in place for the proper location at the time of the H-1B filing. The reason the exception was not extended is that the DOL assured USCIS that LCAs are being processed within the required seven-day processing time. The DOL, in fact, stated that LCAs are being processed within four to five days which is in fact true as well. It is our suggestion to plan accordingly.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/03/lca_needs_to_be_certified_agai.html)
Hence, it again is necessary to have an Approved LCA in place for the proper location at the time of the H-1B filing. The reason the exception was not extended is that the DOL assured USCIS that LCAs are being processed within the required seven-day processing time. The DOL, in fact, stated that LCAs are being processed within four to five days which is in fact true as well. It is our suggestion to plan accordingly.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/03/lca_needs_to_be_certified_agai.html)
girlfriend Biography: H. G. Wells, Part 5
whiteStallion
10-14 07:40 PM
POJO lost its MOJO...
LOL...Way 2 go Mr. Leno! :rolleyes:
LOL...Way 2 go Mr. Leno! :rolleyes:
hairstyles H.G. Wells
lifestrikes
05-17 12:18 PM
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is trying again to get the DREAM Act passed, re-introducing the measure on Wednesday to let some immigrant students in the U.S. illegally stay in the country. Durbin, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and others will be on the bill.
Last December, after passing the House (then under Democratic control) the measure fell five votes short in the Senate and Durbin vowed to keep trying. The Durbin press conference comes a day after President Obama boosted the DREAM Act in an immigration speech in Texas, along the U.S./Mexico border where he called for various reforms.
When Durbin starts an issue, he stays with it. On Sept. 10, 2001, Durbin launched his fight to allow students of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. at a press conference in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood. The DREAM Act became part of a larger national debate on the hot button, divisive immigration issue.
Last December, after passing the House (then under Democratic control) the measure fell five votes short in the Senate and Durbin vowed to keep trying. The Durbin press conference comes a day after President Obama boosted the DREAM Act in an immigration speech in Texas, along the U.S./Mexico border where he called for various reforms.
When Durbin starts an issue, he stays with it. On Sept. 10, 2001, Durbin launched his fight to allow students of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. at a press conference in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood. The DREAM Act became part of a larger national debate on the hot button, divisive immigration issue.
sdrblr
11-27 10:34 PM
This is such an open ended question. It will be very easy to answer if you can add few lines about your background, affordability and qualification(like GRE etc). If not the school names will be all over the place from MIT to the ABC University....as the word "Good School" is very subjective.
novice123
03-04 08:57 PM
I posted this message earlier in some other thread. Actually my questions were irrelevant to the thread I added the message on. Hence, creating a new thread.
I have couple of questions regarding GC filing for future employment.
a. Is it legal to work for company B if one is working for company A and company A has already filed LC?
b. Any danger of getting audit because of multiple LCs?
Thanks!
Compare
I have couple of questions regarding GC filing for future employment.
a. Is it legal to work for company B if one is working for company A and company A has already filed LC?
b. Any danger of getting audit because of multiple LCs?
Thanks!
Compare
No comments:
Post a Comment