InTheMoment
08-20 06:02 PM
Not exactly yabadaba ... if the call goes to TSC/NSC they are not contractors but full employees of USCIS and are known as Immigration Information Officers IIO, who have nothing to do with actual adjudications of I-485 done by CAO's - Center Adjudication Officers (as you rightly pointed out)
once and for all.. the adjudicators dont answer calls. its just cust service people...who are contractors. so if u dont call them.. all they will be doing is sitting around doing nothing.
once and for all.. the adjudicators dont answer calls. its just cust service people...who are contractors. so if u dont call them.. all they will be doing is sitting around doing nothing.
wallpaper 2010 justin bieber old
satishku_2000
06-15 10:41 PM
1. First USCIS has to collect tons of applications that will be filed .
2. They have to issue receipt number for all of them , which needs data entry . I am guessing at least it will take 5 more months to issue receipts.
3. They should start processing tons of APs and EADs , I will not be surprised if they introduce premium processing for these two.
4. Once receipts are issued they probably sort according to the priority date . This sorting may take anywhere between 6 to 9 months.
5. Once sorted they start the initial processing . Meanwhile your FPs/693 might have expired so they will send a letter or RFE (FOR USCIS your application can not go forward ...)
6. So dont expect anything to happen in 4 to 5 years even if your priority date is 2001.
Only thing I hope is you have not been waiting for GC since 2001. Hope you entered the game later than that ...
Good luck with everything
2. They have to issue receipt number for all of them , which needs data entry . I am guessing at least it will take 5 more months to issue receipts.
3. They should start processing tons of APs and EADs , I will not be surprised if they introduce premium processing for these two.
4. Once receipts are issued they probably sort according to the priority date . This sorting may take anywhere between 6 to 9 months.
5. Once sorted they start the initial processing . Meanwhile your FPs/693 might have expired so they will send a letter or RFE (FOR USCIS your application can not go forward ...)
6. So dont expect anything to happen in 4 to 5 years even if your priority date is 2001.
Only thing I hope is you have not been waiting for GC since 2001. Hope you entered the game later than that ...
Good luck with everything
gnutin
06-10 12:43 PM
Hi Gurus,
I came to U.S in May 2006. The company for which currently I am working (Company A) filed my labor (EB2) in October 2009. The labor got approved in May 2010.
My Visa is expiring in March 2011.
Now the attorney has asked me for the documents to proceed with I140.Hopefully my I140 will be filed in couple weeks.
Now my question is that, I am planning to change my job (to employer B) in September 2010.
Please help with your valuable answers for the following questions:-
1. How long does it take to get the i140 approved?
(Regular/Premium)
It is typically taking 1 to 3 months with Regular, but there are cases stuck for much longer too. (Refer to .com for a general idea). With Premium it should be within 30-45 days.
2. What will happen to the PD if employer A withdraws or revokes my I140 approval after I join company B? Can I still carry over my PD?
You lose your PD if employer A revokes the I-140 approval. Note that this revocation is not common and is generally seen in fraud cases.
3. At this point of time how long will I get the new Visa extension when I do the H1B Transfer from employer B?
Premium processing would take less than 30 days. To be safe move after employer B receives the approval.
4. What are the documents I need from employer A if I have to carry forward my PD to the employer B's Green Card process?
You need a copy of the I-140 approval notice and a copy of your PERM labor filing. Any other documents would be a plus because they would help the employer B's attorneys to prepare similar applications.
5. Does the new job need to be the same title and job requirements as the old one?
For porting PD, the answer is no. In fact new job can be EB2 while the old one was EB3.
I came to U.S in May 2006. The company for which currently I am working (Company A) filed my labor (EB2) in October 2009. The labor got approved in May 2010.
My Visa is expiring in March 2011.
Now the attorney has asked me for the documents to proceed with I140.Hopefully my I140 will be filed in couple weeks.
Now my question is that, I am planning to change my job (to employer B) in September 2010.
Please help with your valuable answers for the following questions:-
1. How long does it take to get the i140 approved?
(Regular/Premium)
It is typically taking 1 to 3 months with Regular, but there are cases stuck for much longer too. (Refer to .com for a general idea). With Premium it should be within 30-45 days.
2. What will happen to the PD if employer A withdraws or revokes my I140 approval after I join company B? Can I still carry over my PD?
You lose your PD if employer A revokes the I-140 approval. Note that this revocation is not common and is generally seen in fraud cases.
3. At this point of time how long will I get the new Visa extension when I do the H1B Transfer from employer B?
Premium processing would take less than 30 days. To be safe move after employer B receives the approval.
4. What are the documents I need from employer A if I have to carry forward my PD to the employer B's Green Card process?
You need a copy of the I-140 approval notice and a copy of your PERM labor filing. Any other documents would be a plus because they would help the employer B's attorneys to prepare similar applications.
5. Does the new job need to be the same title and job requirements as the old one?
For porting PD, the answer is no. In fact new job can be EB2 while the old one was EB3.
2011 Justin Bieber#39;s Old Hair Cut
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
unitednations
04-04 01:49 PM
Apologies first. Could not find a link to start a new thread but what I am mentioning below has a direct bearing on people planning/trying for H1 transfers.
**************
Is there a requirement now that an H1 transfer petition must be submitted along with a copy of the company's contract with its client and a copy of the workorder issued by the client, in the canndidate's name?
We are faced with this situation now that we are effecting a candidate's H1 transfer. Our attorney wants these documents. We have also been told that the H1 extension will be granted only till the expiration of the client work order. So if it is a 6 month position, the H1 transfer would be granted for 6 months only. Fortunately in our case it is a much longer assignment.
Has anyone of you encountered this situation or heard about it? If true, does it not mean the end of H1 transfer as we have known it?
Regards
see the link on posting #124 on this thread. there is a court case that uscis is using to justify requesting this type of information.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24555&page=9
**************
Is there a requirement now that an H1 transfer petition must be submitted along with a copy of the company's contract with its client and a copy of the workorder issued by the client, in the canndidate's name?
We are faced with this situation now that we are effecting a candidate's H1 transfer. Our attorney wants these documents. We have also been told that the H1 extension will be granted only till the expiration of the client work order. So if it is a 6 month position, the H1 transfer would be granted for 6 months only. Fortunately in our case it is a much longer assignment.
Has anyone of you encountered this situation or heard about it? If true, does it not mean the end of H1 transfer as we have known it?
Regards
see the link on posting #124 on this thread. there is a court case that uscis is using to justify requesting this type of information.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24555&page=9
needhelp!
02-13 03:20 PM
There's time till evening.. keep 'em coming.
more...
hopefulgc
04-10 02:58 PM
The sorting for priority date is not working right.
For e.g. it is first displaying Apr-00, then all Apr-01, then Apr-02 and so on. Then it displays Aug-00, then Aug-01 and so on.
It is doing alphabetical sorting.
It needs to sort by date or the month-year combination.
Its getting better!
For e.g. it is first displaying Apr-00, then all Apr-01, then Apr-02 and so on. Then it displays Aug-00, then Aug-01 and so on.
It is doing alphabetical sorting.
It needs to sort by date or the month-year combination.
Its getting better!
2010 Justin Bieber#39;s haircut: my
tnite
08-09 10:45 PM
Thanks to all for their prompt reply on my situation. I am in NJ/NY area. And considering short term course during the period of Jun 2008 to October 2008. Which is almost 3 months. Any one have any idea if any kaplan center or community college provide courses or I20 in summer session?
Getting job in university and some non profit organization is another good option. If we consider that, we can apply for H1 anytime? Please advise some more in this option.
Yes marriage is another option, but only 50% is in my hand for this option.
Please please guys, get me some way out of this situation.
Oh, since my H1 has been denied, can I file for 'Motion to ReOpen'? How long USCIS take to decide on MTR and what are my chances there.
The best option for you is go back to a community college to bridge the gap. Motion to reopen will take a long time.
Getting job in university and some non profit organization is another good option. If we consider that, we can apply for H1 anytime? Please advise some more in this option.
Yes marriage is another option, but only 50% is in my hand for this option.
Please please guys, get me some way out of this situation.
Oh, since my H1 has been denied, can I file for 'Motion to ReOpen'? How long USCIS take to decide on MTR and what are my chances there.
The best option for you is go back to a community college to bridge the gap. Motion to reopen will take a long time.
more...
srikondoji
07-05 11:33 AM
Create a seperate forum message for 'sending flowers'. And then we should all digg that message so that even media covers this practise.
--sri
PLEASE DIGG
http://digg.com/politics/Reversal_Frustrates_Green_Card_Applicants
--sri
PLEASE DIGG
http://digg.com/politics/Reversal_Frustrates_Green_Card_Applicants
hair justin bieber old pictures
a1b2c3
12-19 02:09 AM
These articles are nothing new. Given the current state of affairs, its only to be expected because people like you and me are actually displacing some jobs whether we admit it or not.
However, what these folks don't seem to get is that outsourcing is a much bigger culprit. And so go after the business owners who outsource to keep businesses profitable and not target a handful of legal immigrants. And legal immigrants are not responsible for the housing mess! Go after the loan defaulters. Catch the greedy banks who dished out bad loans!!
The unemployment numbers are very high and its spoiling people's holiday season and also their moods. A lot of American citizens don't have a choice to work anywhere else. That clouds their judgement and makes them irrational.Please try to understand the opposite point of view and just ignore these articles instead of starting threads on IV.
However, what these folks don't seem to get is that outsourcing is a much bigger culprit. And so go after the business owners who outsource to keep businesses profitable and not target a handful of legal immigrants. And legal immigrants are not responsible for the housing mess! Go after the loan defaulters. Catch the greedy banks who dished out bad loans!!
The unemployment numbers are very high and its spoiling people's holiday season and also their moods. A lot of American citizens don't have a choice to work anywhere else. That clouds their judgement and makes them irrational.Please try to understand the opposite point of view and just ignore these articles instead of starting threads on IV.
more...
rjgleason
June 4th, 2004, 08:40 PM
Who remembers "The Prisoner"?
Patrick McGoohan............Number 6...........The Village.........mid 60's I think.
Patrick McGoohan............Number 6...........The Village.........mid 60's I think.
hot justin bieber fail haircut.
rsayed
08-22 11:25 AM
i APPLIED ON 7th July...
NO news
I applied on 7th July too - Receipt Date - 8th July - Notice Date - 9th July, 2008.
Paper-filed through my firm's lawyer - nothing so far!
Tried calling USCIS a few times - don't know whom to beleive - once, I was told an IO has not been assigned to my case. The other two times, they said, they're processing cases filed before April 2008 and I'll have to wait another 82-90 days!!!
Which doesn't sound true - coz' I know friends who filed in June/Jul - who got their approvals.
So, I'm compelled to logically arrive at one conclusion - USCIS is in a mess...through and through!!!
It's like the BLACK HOLE - No one knows what goes on in there - once, your app is in - only a miracle can get it out...
Sorry - just venting my frustrations...think I should go jog and drain myself silly...!!! :mad:
NO news
I applied on 7th July too - Receipt Date - 8th July - Notice Date - 9th July, 2008.
Paper-filed through my firm's lawyer - nothing so far!
Tried calling USCIS a few times - don't know whom to beleive - once, I was told an IO has not been assigned to my case. The other two times, they said, they're processing cases filed before April 2008 and I'll have to wait another 82-90 days!!!
Which doesn't sound true - coz' I know friends who filed in June/Jul - who got their approvals.
So, I'm compelled to logically arrive at one conclusion - USCIS is in a mess...through and through!!!
It's like the BLACK HOLE - No one knows what goes on in there - once, your app is in - only a miracle can get it out...
Sorry - just venting my frustrations...think I should go jog and drain myself silly...!!! :mad:
more...
house justin bieber style haircut.
nozerd
09-07 09:54 AM
Yes ofcourse, if I was at the end of GC road I wouldnt go in the first place.
I was questioning this since I wanted to know if it was legaly allowed, since I wouldnt actually be working and earning in the US.
If this is truly allowed and my company lawyer agrees then it would truly make my life easier.
Thanks
I was questioning this since I wanted to know if it was legaly allowed, since I wouldnt actually be working and earning in the US.
If this is truly allowed and my company lawyer agrees then it would truly make my life easier.
Thanks
tattoo tattoo justin bieber old
pbuckeye
06-25 04:07 PM
Agree with Teddy that your petition's case detail substantially changed during the application process. I believe, that was the main reason for the denial.
Consult an attorney and try to file a fresh case. Good luck.
Consult an attorney and try to file a fresh case. Good luck.
more...
pictures justin bieber haircut april
capriol
07-06 11:54 AM
Dear Friends:
I am not sure why nobody is answering to my questions on their AP travel experiences. Please reply, I am almost freaking out not know what sorts of obstacles I might face at Delhi and Amsterdam without a H1B stamped visa. My queries are as below:
I will be returning from India soon by KLM (via the Delhi-Amsterdam-U.S route), with an AP, 485 pending receipt, an H1B status BUT with an expired H1B visa on your passport? Given that I have these documents, I have decided not to get my H1B visa re-stamped in India. But now, I am getting a little panicked as the time is nearing for the following reasons (and these related questions). Will you please answer them for me:
(1) If I have the AP documents, the 485 pending receipt, and my HIB paperwork with me (but not the H1B visa stamped in my passport), will I be able to re-enter the U.S? Will there be any problems at the port of entry?
(2) At Delhi and at Amsterdam, will the immigraiton folks give me trouble if they see an expired HIB visa on my passport? Can they refuse to let me board the plane? Have any of you traveling via Delhi and Amstredam experienced any problems from the immigration folks?
Please share your experiences. Thanks a lot.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I am not sure why nobody is answering to my questions on their AP travel experiences. Please reply, I am almost freaking out not know what sorts of obstacles I might face at Delhi and Amsterdam without a H1B stamped visa. My queries are as below:
I will be returning from India soon by KLM (via the Delhi-Amsterdam-U.S route), with an AP, 485 pending receipt, an H1B status BUT with an expired H1B visa on your passport? Given that I have these documents, I have decided not to get my H1B visa re-stamped in India. But now, I am getting a little panicked as the time is nearing for the following reasons (and these related questions). Will you please answer them for me:
(1) If I have the AP documents, the 485 pending receipt, and my HIB paperwork with me (but not the H1B visa stamped in my passport), will I be able to re-enter the U.S? Will there be any problems at the port of entry?
(2) At Delhi and at Amsterdam, will the immigraiton folks give me trouble if they see an expired HIB visa on my passport? Can they refuse to let me board the plane? Have any of you traveling via Delhi and Amstredam experienced any problems from the immigration folks?
Please share your experiences. Thanks a lot.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
dresses Justin Bieber#39;s New Haircut,
InTheMoment
04-22 11:47 AM
There is absolutely nothing strange in the RFE that you got, it is as vanilla a RFE as it can get.
Just mention the duties and the title as they are in your Labor Cert. do not mix the H1-B title/duties with this one.
That said, there are several resources within the forums where you can get specific info on how to answer these !
Good luck :)
Just mention the duties and the title as they are in your Labor Cert. do not mix the H1-B title/duties with this one.
That said, there are several resources within the forums where you can get specific info on how to answer these !
Good luck :)
more...
makeup My advice for Bieber: continue
wandmaker
02-11 12:21 PM
My online I-140 status shows the case cannot be found. The receipt date for my i-140 is current. What should I do? Anybody seen this issue.
Lot of applications filed during July 2007 fiasco had the same issues, eventually the online system got synced over a period of time. If you have a hard copy of the notice with you, don't worry about the online system - it is out of date sometime. For your personal satisfaction, Call USCIS to find out whether the case is really in their internal system.
Lot of applications filed during July 2007 fiasco had the same issues, eventually the online system got synced over a period of time. If you have a hard copy of the notice with you, don't worry about the online system - it is out of date sometime. For your personal satisfaction, Call USCIS to find out whether the case is really in their internal system.
girlfriend of teenie boppers Justin
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
hairstyles justin bieber old. justin
Jim
January 5th, 2005, 08:27 PM
Very nice, Freddy. I like what you have done with this image. The red is perfect.
WaitingForMyGC
06-25 09:56 AM
Bumping up.
thirumalkn
07-23 06:26 PM
Hi all,
I'm not sure if this has been already discussed before. I did a little bit of search, but couldn't find any relevant thread / posts in this issue on IV forums. Hence posting this question. If it is already discussed, thanks for providing the link.
If a company is willing to promote a Green Card applicant, how long should they wait after filing for Adjustment of Status (I-485) ? Let's assume the promotion Job description would be including all the current responsibilities and in addition there will be some more managerial responsibilities.
1. As soon as AOS (I-485) is filed.
2. After getting the I-485 receipt.
3. After the Finger Printing process (Biometric).
4. After getting the EAD.
5. After the 180 days mark (since the date of file) using AC21 portability.
6. After the I-485 is approved.
7. Only after getting the Green Card on hand.
Please provide references if there are any clear legal / procedural documents explaining this online.
I'm not sure if this has been already discussed before. I did a little bit of search, but couldn't find any relevant thread / posts in this issue on IV forums. Hence posting this question. If it is already discussed, thanks for providing the link.
If a company is willing to promote a Green Card applicant, how long should they wait after filing for Adjustment of Status (I-485) ? Let's assume the promotion Job description would be including all the current responsibilities and in addition there will be some more managerial responsibilities.
1. As soon as AOS (I-485) is filed.
2. After getting the I-485 receipt.
3. After the Finger Printing process (Biometric).
4. After getting the EAD.
5. After the 180 days mark (since the date of file) using AC21 portability.
6. After the I-485 is approved.
7. Only after getting the Green Card on hand.
Please provide references if there are any clear legal / procedural documents explaining this online.
No comments:
Post a Comment