sku
09-11 04:25 PM
Just to clarify
Last Option Sept 2004 - Jan 2005 Priority Date ...Should be read as Oct 2004 - Jan 2005 Priority Date.
Last Option Sept 2004 - Jan 2005 Priority Date ...Should be read as Oct 2004 - Jan 2005 Priority Date.
jthomas
12-04 08:41 PM
If my wife is a US Green card holder and i am in H1B and if we both file for candian green card and move to canada for a week for stamping. Would it create a problem on US citizenship for my wife.
the third rule on the first thread.
the third rule on the first thread.
Pagal
09-19 11:21 AM
Hello,
Sorry to read your experience ... not to rationalize the conduct of the rude employee, but they are also just human beings who have family, financial worries/problems and not all of them like their jobs either ...
Having said that, there is no reason for you to accept the rude behavior of anyone ... you are asking for a visa, not begging for it! Here are somethings that you can do ...
1. Email to the Consul General to file a complaint (provide as many details as possible, e.g. time of interview, window number, sequence of interactions, specific parts that you found offending and unreasonable). Here are the contact details (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/contact-us.html).
2. Write a letter to Consul General with copy to US ambassador, the Ombudsman of state department and Secretary of State. Here is the online form (http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=qk*MUpak&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfc m93X2NudD05NCw5NCZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9JnBfcHY9JnB fY3Y9JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmc F9wYWdlPTE!) (and on left side, there are phone numbers and addresses).
Always remember that you are a free citizen of a free country who is working in US because there exists documented need for your skills in US.
Good luck and I hope your visa is granted in due time ...
Sorry to read your experience ... not to rationalize the conduct of the rude employee, but they are also just human beings who have family, financial worries/problems and not all of them like their jobs either ...
Having said that, there is no reason for you to accept the rude behavior of anyone ... you are asking for a visa, not begging for it! Here are somethings that you can do ...
1. Email to the Consul General to file a complaint (provide as many details as possible, e.g. time of interview, window number, sequence of interactions, specific parts that you found offending and unreasonable). Here are the contact details (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/contact-us.html).
2. Write a letter to Consul General with copy to US ambassador, the Ombudsman of state department and Secretary of State. Here is the online form (http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=qk*MUpak&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfc m93X2NudD05NCw5NCZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9JnBfcHY9JnB fY3Y9JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmc F9wYWdlPTE!) (and on left side, there are phone numbers and addresses).
Always remember that you are a free citizen of a free country who is working in US because there exists documented need for your skills in US.
Good luck and I hope your visa is granted in due time ...
prom2
10-25 05:26 PM
I got the same response about AP (same RD), approved Oct 17, not received yet.
Please let us know if you receive it. Good luck.
Please let us know if you receive it. Good luck.
more...
cbpds
07-02 08:43 PM
You can file Motion to reopen
bombaysardar
07-16 09:08 AM
see Greg Siskind's blog :
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
more...
n_2006
02-23 12:35 PM
Why people ask dumb questions. For me most of these questions are dumb and answers are obvious.
Right. I am not going to resign in haste. But I am confident I can find my current salary in 2-3 months. Question is , should I go for it or accept the paycut and stick it out as long as I can?
Right. I am not going to resign in haste. But I am confident I can find my current salary in 2-3 months. Question is , should I go for it or accept the paycut and stick it out as long as I can?
sdeshpan
07-10 04:29 PM
Wow, surprisingly the Eb-2 dates have moved ahead by 2 yrs!! I have a feeling they will go back to 2000 next month :p
more...
andycool
07-18 11:05 AM
here is a brief account of my, and my spouse's, arduous but successful journey toward the coveted green cards. i hope this account helps you somehow.
(note: what you read below is all of what i am willing to share. i have spent a lot of time in typing it. i will not have the time or inclination for any elaborations or explanations!)
1. landed in the united states on f-1 visa -- september 2000.
2. arrested on misdemeanor shoplifting charge after prank went awry -- june 2001; judge dropped charge in july 2001 and also sealed and expunged the record.
3. changed from f-1 to h-1b upon accepting job offer from employer A, via about two months of c.p.t. in september 2003 (never used o.p.t.)
4. obtained labor certification in may 2004, and approval of i-140 (via eb-2) in march 2005, both via employer A. (priority date was, hence, may 2004).
5. got married in home country in june 2006; spouse landed in the united states on h-4 in november 2006.
6. graduated with advanced degree (and high academic honors) in december 2006.
7. transferred h-1b from employer A to employer B in september 2007; abandoned employer A's i-140 approval.
8. spouse, who had been on h-4 since november 2006, changed to f-1 in september 2007 to pursue advanced degree; spouse graduated in may 2009.
9. arrested in april 2008 for driving while visually impaired; convicted and punished by judge with three-month driving probation and fine.
10. obtained new labor certification in march 2008 and obtained new i-140 approval (again via eb-2) in september 2008; both via employer B.
11. mailed i-485s for self and spouse in october 2008; did not realize while mailing that the priority date had recently retrogressed (had no attorney assistance); but uscis accepted petitions, cashed checks, and processed the i-485s by sending self and spouse biometric appointments and an r.f.e. (for spouse).
12. transferred h-1b again, from employer B to employer C, in june 2009, more than 180 days after i-485s had been pending; spouse simultaneously applied for change of status from f-1 to h-4.
13. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews in october 2009 based on self's i-140 approval obtained through employer B; i-485 petitions denied because priority date had not been current when filed; self and spouse shocked and in near-panic! self began to consider restarting green card process from i-140 stage, this time via eb-1.
14. h-1b extended in december 2010 for a year, via employer C's petition; at time of extension approval, self's original six years on h-1b had elapsed.
15. re-filed i-485s in january 2010, this time with attorney's help (mainly to write cover letter).
16. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews again in june 2010, based on second i-485 petitions (based on self's i-140 approval obtained via employer B, even though at this time self was with employer C with previously denied -- for a technicality -- i-485s); i-485 petitions approved at the interview -- jai siyaram!
17. self and spouse received approval notices and "card production ordered" emails, all dated 13 days after interview.
18. received green cards and "welcome to the united states" fliers, both in july 2010, 29 days after i-485 interviews -- jai shri krishna!
notes in conclusion:
1. the green card process via employment, from h-1b through i-485, with possible multiple approvals/denials of each, is daunting due to the time and expense involved (including possible cost of attorney)
2. uscis's emphasis on technicalities can be frustrating; in our experience, approval of a i-485 is ultimately a discretion exercised by a single reviewing officer.
3. overall, applicant and any spouse/kids (a) must have maintained legal status throughout the h1b through i-485 process, and (b) must never have been convicted of felonious assault or moral turpitude.
4. in the end, applicant would find that the immigration system works, slow though it is because of congressional quotas and a somewhat slothful or myopic uscis.
5. i offer my best wishes to all that are reading this, regardless of citizenship. as a proud (and relieved!) new permanent resident of the united states, i say to you, "good luck and an advance welcome!"
reminder: what you read above is all of what i am willing to share. i spent a lot of time in typing it. i won't have the time or inclination for elaborations or explanations but, most sincerely, i wish you well!
Dude ,
Its indeed a long Journey ....
Enjoy
Thanks
(note: what you read below is all of what i am willing to share. i have spent a lot of time in typing it. i will not have the time or inclination for any elaborations or explanations!)
1. landed in the united states on f-1 visa -- september 2000.
2. arrested on misdemeanor shoplifting charge after prank went awry -- june 2001; judge dropped charge in july 2001 and also sealed and expunged the record.
3. changed from f-1 to h-1b upon accepting job offer from employer A, via about two months of c.p.t. in september 2003 (never used o.p.t.)
4. obtained labor certification in may 2004, and approval of i-140 (via eb-2) in march 2005, both via employer A. (priority date was, hence, may 2004).
5. got married in home country in june 2006; spouse landed in the united states on h-4 in november 2006.
6. graduated with advanced degree (and high academic honors) in december 2006.
7. transferred h-1b from employer A to employer B in september 2007; abandoned employer A's i-140 approval.
8. spouse, who had been on h-4 since november 2006, changed to f-1 in september 2007 to pursue advanced degree; spouse graduated in may 2009.
9. arrested in april 2008 for driving while visually impaired; convicted and punished by judge with three-month driving probation and fine.
10. obtained new labor certification in march 2008 and obtained new i-140 approval (again via eb-2) in september 2008; both via employer B.
11. mailed i-485s for self and spouse in october 2008; did not realize while mailing that the priority date had recently retrogressed (had no attorney assistance); but uscis accepted petitions, cashed checks, and processed the i-485s by sending self and spouse biometric appointments and an r.f.e. (for spouse).
12. transferred h-1b again, from employer B to employer C, in june 2009, more than 180 days after i-485s had been pending; spouse simultaneously applied for change of status from f-1 to h-4.
13. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews in october 2009 based on self's i-140 approval obtained through employer B; i-485 petitions denied because priority date had not been current when filed; self and spouse shocked and in near-panic! self began to consider restarting green card process from i-140 stage, this time via eb-1.
14. h-1b extended in december 2010 for a year, via employer C's petition; at time of extension approval, self's original six years on h-1b had elapsed.
15. re-filed i-485s in january 2010, this time with attorney's help (mainly to write cover letter).
16. self and spouse invited for i-485 interviews again in june 2010, based on second i-485 petitions (based on self's i-140 approval obtained via employer B, even though at this time self was with employer C with previously denied -- for a technicality -- i-485s); i-485 petitions approved at the interview -- jai siyaram!
17. self and spouse received approval notices and "card production ordered" emails, all dated 13 days after interview.
18. received green cards and "welcome to the united states" fliers, both in july 2010, 29 days after i-485 interviews -- jai shri krishna!
notes in conclusion:
1. the green card process via employment, from h-1b through i-485, with possible multiple approvals/denials of each, is daunting due to the time and expense involved (including possible cost of attorney)
2. uscis's emphasis on technicalities can be frustrating; in our experience, approval of a i-485 is ultimately a discretion exercised by a single reviewing officer.
3. overall, applicant and any spouse/kids (a) must have maintained legal status throughout the h1b through i-485 process, and (b) must never have been convicted of felonious assault or moral turpitude.
4. in the end, applicant would find that the immigration system works, slow though it is because of congressional quotas and a somewhat slothful or myopic uscis.
5. i offer my best wishes to all that are reading this, regardless of citizenship. as a proud (and relieved!) new permanent resident of the united states, i say to you, "good luck and an advance welcome!"
reminder: what you read above is all of what i am willing to share. i spent a lot of time in typing it. i won't have the time or inclination for elaborations or explanations but, most sincerely, i wish you well!
Dude ,
Its indeed a long Journey ....
Enjoy
Thanks
nashim
08-14 01:08 PM
USCIS has only and only random process/ theory
more...
breddy2000
01-04 01:13 PM
Hi,
I have a serious problem and I am not sure what would be the solution. My wife came on H4 in 2001 and we applied for H1B and we got an approval which was valid until Oct 2006. But, in Mar 2006, due to some personal reasons we applied for COS from H1B to H4 and we got H4 approval which was valid until Aug 27, 2006. Before the expiry of H4 status in August 2006, we decided to apply for H1B and since her H1B was valid until Oct 2006, our attorney applied for H1B under I-539 and they didn't apply for H4 extension simultaneously. Meanwhile, while the H1B was in process, we applied for premium processing later which added few problems. We got an RFE on this case and our attorney answered it by sending appropriate docs but again we got a second RFE which is not answered yet.
Right now she is out of status and also, what will happen if her H1 is rejected and is it possible to apply for H4 right now, since it was expired in Aug 2006. If her H1 is rejected, can we apply for H4 even though her H4 was expired few months back or she has leave the country. Please help us out.
Thanks & Regards,
-- Venkat
We were in similar situation sometime ago...Take all the documentation and leave country and come back. But this can be done only upon receival of H1 1797. I would suggest wait until 1-797 is obtained and decide based on the outcome.
BTW is she working now? If not, it is always better to keep mails/communication with the company that filed H1 to show that she was maintaing status and not getting paid..
Hope this helps.
PM me if you need any further help..
I have a serious problem and I am not sure what would be the solution. My wife came on H4 in 2001 and we applied for H1B and we got an approval which was valid until Oct 2006. But, in Mar 2006, due to some personal reasons we applied for COS from H1B to H4 and we got H4 approval which was valid until Aug 27, 2006. Before the expiry of H4 status in August 2006, we decided to apply for H1B and since her H1B was valid until Oct 2006, our attorney applied for H1B under I-539 and they didn't apply for H4 extension simultaneously. Meanwhile, while the H1B was in process, we applied for premium processing later which added few problems. We got an RFE on this case and our attorney answered it by sending appropriate docs but again we got a second RFE which is not answered yet.
Right now she is out of status and also, what will happen if her H1 is rejected and is it possible to apply for H4 right now, since it was expired in Aug 2006. If her H1 is rejected, can we apply for H4 even though her H4 was expired few months back or she has leave the country. Please help us out.
Thanks & Regards,
-- Venkat
We were in similar situation sometime ago...Take all the documentation and leave country and come back. But this can be done only upon receival of H1 1797. I would suggest wait until 1-797 is obtained and decide based on the outcome.
BTW is she working now? If not, it is always better to keep mails/communication with the company that filed H1 to show that she was maintaing status and not getting paid..
Hope this helps.
PM me if you need any further help..
sobers
02-09 08:58 AM
Discussion about challenges in America�s immigration policies tends to focus on the millions of illegal immigrants. But the more pressing immigration problem facing the US today, writes Intel chairman Craig Barrett, is the dearth of high-skilled immigrants required to keep the US economy competitive. Due to tighter visa policies and a growth in opportunities elsewhere in the world, foreign students majoring in science and engineering at US universities are no longer staying to work after graduation in the large numbers that they once did. With the poor quality of science and math education at the primary and secondary levels in the US, the country cannot afford to lose any highly-skilled immigrants, particularly in key, technology-related disciplines. Along with across-the-board improvements in education, the US needs to find a way to attract enough new workers so that companies like Intel do not have to set up shop elsewhere.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
more...
pitha
05-29 10:50 PM
ramus, really appreciate your dedication in taking ownership of geeting people to send webfax. For the record sent the webfax, got my wife to send the web fax as well. Since people are so lazy if you ask somebody to send webfax, also include the url alteast that way they might click on the url and send the web fax. the url for the web fax is
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_iv_webfax&task=getContactDetails&Itemid=46
People for your own sake please follow all action alerts, web fax, calling senators emails etc. This is now or never
HI.. Could you please send web-fax.. We want to reach 3000 number tonight..
If core team is doing so much, can we do this for ourself and show them our support.
Thank you so much.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_iv_webfax&task=getContactDetails&Itemid=46
People for your own sake please follow all action alerts, web fax, calling senators emails etc. This is now or never
HI.. Could you please send web-fax.. We want to reach 3000 number tonight..
If core team is doing so much, can we do this for ourself and show them our support.
Thank you so much.
gotgc?
08-06 11:27 AM
Mine is not labor substitution though. My lawyer never received the original hardcopy of the labor certification.
What can we do about this? It is way outside the processing time. My lawyer submitted an inquiry to USCIS in Jan 07. In Feb 07, they came back and said it requires an additional review. No updates since then except an LUD update last week with 07/28/07. When I spoke to my lawyer, she said she can file another inquiry in august..because she says we have to wait for 6 months before we file another inquiry..
Just curious, whether you are doing anything different to follow up on this case...?
What can we do about this? It is way outside the processing time. My lawyer submitted an inquiry to USCIS in Jan 07. In Feb 07, they came back and said it requires an additional review. No updates since then except an LUD update last week with 07/28/07. When I spoke to my lawyer, she said she can file another inquiry in august..because she says we have to wait for 6 months before we file another inquiry..
Just curious, whether you are doing anything different to follow up on this case...?
more...
nousername
11-20 09:05 PM
Sorry to hear about your situation.. Your husbands b***s should be chopped for physically abusing you..
I'm not sure where you are based or which country you originally belong to but like in SF Bay Area (California) there is Indian Community Center which on Sunday's offer free legal advice. Here is the link Free Legal Clinic | Indiacc Home (http://www.indiacc.org/legal_clinic)
You might have something like this around you live..
Good luck.
Help!
I divorced my husband after 14 months of marriage. I have a green card with conditional residency (the I-751 90 day 'window' to remove conditions starts Sept 2010). My husband was abusive mentally and physically, I have no contact with him.
I cannot prove the abuse definitively as I covered it up at the time (no photos or police reports, only my testimony and perhaps that of the counselors we saw together). The advice I have received on how to proceed has been conflicting; some say wait and apply during the 90 day window to remove the conditions and it MIGHT be ok; some say I need to file now and prove the abuse.
I have no money for a lawyer as my husband also stole most of my money and I just got laid off as well. Any ideas?!? Does anyone know if it is riskier to try and prove the abuse or how hard that is and if I'm more likely to lose my green card that way? Is there any way at all do to this without thousands to spend on a lawyer?
Many thanks in advance for all help and advice.
P.S. I've tried the local bar association, legal aid and a thousand other options, all of which have either been dead-ends or given me yet more conflicting info.
I'm not sure where you are based or which country you originally belong to but like in SF Bay Area (California) there is Indian Community Center which on Sunday's offer free legal advice. Here is the link Free Legal Clinic | Indiacc Home (http://www.indiacc.org/legal_clinic)
You might have something like this around you live..
Good luck.
Help!
I divorced my husband after 14 months of marriage. I have a green card with conditional residency (the I-751 90 day 'window' to remove conditions starts Sept 2010). My husband was abusive mentally and physically, I have no contact with him.
I cannot prove the abuse definitively as I covered it up at the time (no photos or police reports, only my testimony and perhaps that of the counselors we saw together). The advice I have received on how to proceed has been conflicting; some say wait and apply during the 90 day window to remove the conditions and it MIGHT be ok; some say I need to file now and prove the abuse.
I have no money for a lawyer as my husband also stole most of my money and I just got laid off as well. Any ideas?!? Does anyone know if it is riskier to try and prove the abuse or how hard that is and if I'm more likely to lose my green card that way? Is there any way at all do to this without thousands to spend on a lawyer?
Many thanks in advance for all help and advice.
P.S. I've tried the local bar association, legal aid and a thousand other options, all of which have either been dead-ends or given me yet more conflicting info.
jchan
10-18 01:04 PM
I have the exact question with duttasurajit -- my title for green card is computer information system manager, and I'd like to take a job for technical lead / architect. The job duties are very similar. Will that cause a problem?
btw: I don't know why so many people apply under the title of 'computer information system manager'. If you search Dice.com, hardly any position come out with this title.
Thanks everyone for the valued response. One last question:
I was under the impression that the job title does not matter for AC21 as long as the job duties are similar. For example, instead of IT Manager, say, I get a title of Developement Lead/Team Lead and the Job duties are similar.
What happens in this case? Is it still risky to pursue AC21?
btw: I don't know why so many people apply under the title of 'computer information system manager'. If you search Dice.com, hardly any position come out with this title.
Thanks everyone for the valued response. One last question:
I was under the impression that the job title does not matter for AC21 as long as the job duties are similar. For example, instead of IT Manager, say, I get a title of Developement Lead/Team Lead and the Job duties are similar.
What happens in this case? Is it still risky to pursue AC21?
more...
webm
07-09 11:59 AM
Don't worry,the EAD approval rate became faster thesey days..esp TSC/NSC..:)..
On top of that,you should get 2 yr EAD..:)
On top of that,you should get 2 yr EAD..:)
gcformeornot
08-30 01:21 PM
he is a dummy. Just wasting our time.
seekerofpeace
09-11 10:11 PM
1 approved one pending so I voted. Actually I can vote for both "The approved" and "Awaiting Approval" polls...isn't that great....:(
SoP
SoP
satishku_2000
08-03 03:53 PM
In my opinion USCIS is not very strict on the RFE deadlines. I was late by 3 days for an RFE on my I140. They accepted. But that was more than a year ago. May be, it depends on officer.
This is the latest on my LIN number ...
Response to request for evidence received, and case processing has resumed.
What does it mean ... Any Ideas folks ...
This is the latest on my LIN number ...
Response to request for evidence received, and case processing has resumed.
What does it mean ... Any Ideas folks ...
fromnaija
05-22 04:45 PM
Since there is a quota, priority date will come into play. That is why the new bill specifies that those who files I-140 after May 21, 2007 and those whose LC are approved or pending will maintain their priority dates. Anyone who files under the new point based system will have their receipt dates as their priority dates.
Its not clear yet if priority date comes into the picture at all. Nothing is clear yet, for example for the Canadian points system does not have a country quota or any limits on the number of gc every year. There is a cetain pass mark and if you have the required pass marks you make it.
With the CIR points system there is an annual limit and also a country quota, so how will they select candiddates,
1. based on pass marks?
2. based on who has the highest number of points for each country
3. Does the priority date come into plat at all?
hope somebody has the answers for these questions.
Its not clear yet if priority date comes into the picture at all. Nothing is clear yet, for example for the Canadian points system does not have a country quota or any limits on the number of gc every year. There is a cetain pass mark and if you have the required pass marks you make it.
With the CIR points system there is an annual limit and also a country quota, so how will they select candiddates,
1. based on pass marks?
2. based on who has the highest number of points for each country
3. Does the priority date come into plat at all?
hope somebody has the answers for these questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment