sriharirag
07-16 10:47 AM
Here is the full article.
>>>>>>>>>>>
U.S. to Reverse
Some Denials
Of Work Visas
By MIRIAM JORDAN
July 16, 2007; Page A2
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.
Tens of thousands of skilled workers, many of them in the U.S. on temporary H1B visas, responded to an official invitation, in a June 12 "visa bulletin" issued by the State Department, to take the final step in July toward attaining U.S. permanent residency. That sent workers, their families and their employers scrambling to compile paperwork and meet other requirements such as medical exams. Normally, eligible employment-sponsored workers wait years for their numbers to be called.
Then, July 2, as applications poured into processing centers, the State Department announced in a bulletin "update" that no employment-based immigrant visas were left for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 because of "sudden backlog reduction" by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS announced it would reject applications that it received.
People familiar with the situation say that officials are working out the final details of a plan that would at least partially rectify the problem.
It isn't clear, however, whether the immigration agency will now accept all applications and process them later, accept only those that have arrived, or come up with some other approach.
The July 2 decision provoked outrage among immigration lawyers, foreign workers and their employers. July 5, Microsoft Corp. announced that it plans soon to open a software-development center in Vancouver, Canada, with a view to "recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S." The announcement sent a clear signal to the government of the high-tech industry's dissatisfaction with the visa situation.
July 6, a large Chicago immigration law firm filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against the government. Separately, the American Immigration Law Foundation, a nonprofit group, said it will file this week its own suit seeking class-action status.
Meanwhile, disgruntled green-card applicants cried foul, saying they had been unfairly treated by the government despite playing by the rules.
July 10, they registered their disappointment at the immigration system by dispatching hundreds of flower bouquets to the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief Emilio Gonzalez.
The next day, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), whose district includes Silicon Valley, sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff requesting "all correspondence, emails, memoranda, notes, field guidance or other documentation" leading to the immigration system's about-face July 2.
The problem may have resulted from a communications breakdown between the State Department, which issues a monthly bulletin detailing who is eligible to file a green-card application, and USCIS, which processes the visa applications. The State Department has said that its role is to ensure that every visa slot available is used. In the past, however, the immigration agency has failed to use all of the slots.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
U.S. to Reverse
Some Denials
Of Work Visas
By MIRIAM JORDAN
July 16, 2007; Page A2
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.
Tens of thousands of skilled workers, many of them in the U.S. on temporary H1B visas, responded to an official invitation, in a June 12 "visa bulletin" issued by the State Department, to take the final step in July toward attaining U.S. permanent residency. That sent workers, their families and their employers scrambling to compile paperwork and meet other requirements such as medical exams. Normally, eligible employment-sponsored workers wait years for their numbers to be called.
Then, July 2, as applications poured into processing centers, the State Department announced in a bulletin "update" that no employment-based immigrant visas were left for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 because of "sudden backlog reduction" by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS announced it would reject applications that it received.
People familiar with the situation say that officials are working out the final details of a plan that would at least partially rectify the problem.
It isn't clear, however, whether the immigration agency will now accept all applications and process them later, accept only those that have arrived, or come up with some other approach.
The July 2 decision provoked outrage among immigration lawyers, foreign workers and their employers. July 5, Microsoft Corp. announced that it plans soon to open a software-development center in Vancouver, Canada, with a view to "recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S." The announcement sent a clear signal to the government of the high-tech industry's dissatisfaction with the visa situation.
July 6, a large Chicago immigration law firm filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against the government. Separately, the American Immigration Law Foundation, a nonprofit group, said it will file this week its own suit seeking class-action status.
Meanwhile, disgruntled green-card applicants cried foul, saying they had been unfairly treated by the government despite playing by the rules.
July 10, they registered their disappointment at the immigration system by dispatching hundreds of flower bouquets to the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief Emilio Gonzalez.
The next day, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), whose district includes Silicon Valley, sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff requesting "all correspondence, emails, memoranda, notes, field guidance or other documentation" leading to the immigration system's about-face July 2.
The problem may have resulted from a communications breakdown between the State Department, which issues a monthly bulletin detailing who is eligible to file a green-card application, and USCIS, which processes the visa applications. The State Department has said that its role is to ensure that every visa slot available is used. In the past, however, the immigration agency has failed to use all of the slots.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com
wallpaper ronaldo soccer oots 2011,
lavanyamohan
03-17 01:10 PM
Hi mhtanim,
Thanks for your response.
Is www.gowda.com a reputed lawfirm.?
I am just being careful as I have suffered a lot due to in effiscient attornys .
Thanks for your response.
Is www.gowda.com a reputed lawfirm.?
I am just being careful as I have suffered a lot due to in effiscient attornys .
kumarc123
12-05 02:42 PM
with the job loss report announced this morning (over 500k lost last month, and 1.9million lost overall) its unlikely this will come through. Too hot button an issue. Even if teh quota is increased, like in 2002/2003 its unlikely it will be filled.
I am skeptical about H1B increase, (taking in to market conditions), I believe Obama administration will push for more number of green cards.
What do you guys think?
Are you joining the IV DC Rally? Please do, this our chance.
I am skeptical about H1B increase, (taking in to market conditions), I believe Obama administration will push for more number of green cards.
What do you guys think?
Are you joining the IV DC Rally? Please do, this our chance.
2011 Cristiano Ronaldo wins 2011
rajsand
09-20 01:38 PM
Hey Jaime you seem to be all charged up!!
Great energy, will inspire many!!
Hope we have one more rally soon!
Great energy, will inspire many!!
Hope we have one more rally soon!
more...
needhelpASAP
04-25 06:04 PM
Hi, I have a rather unique case. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Below are my details:
While on OPT, I accepted an offer from a company in January. They agreed to sponsor me.
My H1B was processed with premium processing fee.
H1B approved on 04/20/2008. (But it will be effective n October 1st)
I was laid-off on 04/23/2008 (But will receive payment till 04/25/2008)
Am i out of status?
(Technically I was working on OPT; did that change once my application was approved?)
Am i still eligible for employment? (I have my OPT till 06/22)
Can another company apply for another H1B petition for me OPT expires?
(will expire on 06/22/2008) How long do I have to find another employer?
Thanks in advance!
While on OPT, I accepted an offer from a company in January. They agreed to sponsor me.
My H1B was processed with premium processing fee.
H1B approved on 04/20/2008. (But it will be effective n October 1st)
I was laid-off on 04/23/2008 (But will receive payment till 04/25/2008)
Am i out of status?
(Technically I was working on OPT; did that change once my application was approved?)
Am i still eligible for employment? (I have my OPT till 06/22)
Can another company apply for another H1B petition for me OPT expires?
(will expire on 06/22/2008) How long do I have to find another employer?
Thanks in advance!
chakdepatte
11-11 09:29 AM
go to uscis.gov and sign up for e-filing. fill in the I-131 form for urself and wife et al. u will seriously save a ton of money that can be done in 15 minutes and follow uscis instructions only.
did that 3 months ago. got an RFE about photographs not being compliant with us passport requirements. sending response as I type.
all the best
-chakdepatte
did that 3 months ago. got an RFE about photographs not being compliant with us passport requirements. sending response as I type.
all the best
-chakdepatte
more...
sukhyani
01-26 08:02 PM
^^^bump^^^
2010 Blog - Cristiano Ronaldo New
ragz4u
01-25 11:53 AM
What is lobbying and is it legal?
As per the definition at Wikipedia, Lobbying is the practice of private advocacy with the goal of influencing a governing body by promoting a point of view that is conducive to an individual's or organization's goals. more information can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
It is 100% legal and is in fact the preferred way of getting things done by most corporations. Corporations like Microsoft, Dell, Yahoo, Google etc have all used lobbying in the past and in fact I would go as far as saying that every Fortune 1000 firm has used lobbying at one point of time or another. Just search for any company name and the word lobbying on Google and you'll see what we are talking about
What has lobbying got to do with the Immigration Bill?
As we know from part III, Senator Specter will be creating a markup of the Senate Immigration Bill. This may/may not contain the provisions that the immigrant community is looking for.
The differennt bills that are being considered for the markup are McCain Kennedy bill, Cornyn Kyl bill, the Chuck Hagel Bill and a few others
This document by AILA compares the various versions of the bill in different categories http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/immreform106.pdf. This also considers a markup of Senator Specter which is unofficial at the moment. This means that until it gets officially presented to the Judiciary Committee for review, it could change anytime.
This markup already seems to contain the provisions we need, what are we still worried about?
If you have read my post on S.1932, you would know that a bill can be amended at multiple stages.
1) Senator Specter could change his markup, after all he has not come out with an official version. Do not forget that the link above refers to an unofficial version of the markup. As per unconfirmed reports, the Chairman's markup could be out anytime between now and mid-march and a lot of things could change in the mean time
2) Assuming that the markup does contain the provisions that we as immigrants are fighting for, any judiciary committee member can propose an amendment to the bill which could result in a an unwanted change. A case in point is the amendment that Senator Diane Feinstein proposed during S.1932 which reduced the increase in H1B visas from 60,000 to 30,000. Imagine if a senator brings in an amendment that strips off all the provisions for legal immigration!
3) If the bill does not have strong support within the Judiciary committee, it could be voted out and it becomes history
4) Assuming that the bill passes through the above steps, it is presented to the full Senate for a debate and vote. Here too any member of the senate can propose an amendment to the bill and the house votes on it. A case in point is the Byrd Amendment which was introduced by Senate Byrd from Virginia which sought to drop sections 8001 and 8002 from the S.1932. This was defeated by the a margin of 84-15 but remember that if it had enough support, S.1932 would have ended here
5) Once the bill passes with the immigration provisions in the Senate, it is presented to a joint conference committee where a few senators and a few congressmen deliberate on which sections to include int he conference bill from among the House bill and the Senate bill. Remember that the house bill has already been passed (HR.4437) and it does not contain any immigration provisions. The House members could again force the senate representatives to drop the immigration provisions. The S.1932 bill's pro-immigration sections got dropped precisely at this juncture
So as can be seen, there are various stumbling blocks towards achieving a favorable bill.
The only way we can ensure that the pro-immigrant provisions do not get ignored or sacrificed is by lobbying. By lobbying we can ensure that the right folks at the right places can understand our concern and empathize with us.
A lobbying firm can ensure that we send a consistent and effective message to the right people. As mentioned earlier, some of the lobbying firms have ex-Congressmen and ex-Senators on their boards. These folks have a great working relationship with the current senators and congressmen. These lobbyists can not only get our issues be heard by the powers, they can possibly influence them by using some political capital
Why can't we just contact the lawmakers directly and tell them about it? Why spend money for lobbyists?
We can definitely try doing this ourselves. This is a free country and nothing stops us from doing so. Unfortunately the effectiveness of such a method is questionable.
During S.1932 proceedings, many members of this forum contacted their local congressmen and senators and asked for appointments. Many also conveyed their views to the staff and many also faxed their views in. Unfortunately the bill passed without the pro-immigration provisions. The message was not conveyed strongly enough and it was conveyed as individuals and not a group.
It was realized that unless we present our case the way Washington, DC is used to seeing it (by hiring lobbyists), the message will not get through.
Lobbyists have direct access to the actual congressmen and senators while the most we can hope is getting a key staff member's attention.
A lobbyist can influence a house member, while we can only hope that the staff members pass our views to the house member.
We do not know which members are really the ones to target and key decision makers and we might end up concentrating on the wrong house members. A lobbyist can help us identify these key members.
All in all, a lobbyist can help us use our energy in the right way and not end up wasting it doing frivolous things and ultimately help us achieve our dreams
And do not forget that some of the anti-immigration groups like numbersusa already have full time lobbyists working for them in DC. If we are to even put up a decent fight against these very dedicated anti-immigrant forces, we need to get help from a professional lobbying firm
As per the definition at Wikipedia, Lobbying is the practice of private advocacy with the goal of influencing a governing body by promoting a point of view that is conducive to an individual's or organization's goals. more information can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
It is 100% legal and is in fact the preferred way of getting things done by most corporations. Corporations like Microsoft, Dell, Yahoo, Google etc have all used lobbying in the past and in fact I would go as far as saying that every Fortune 1000 firm has used lobbying at one point of time or another. Just search for any company name and the word lobbying on Google and you'll see what we are talking about
What has lobbying got to do with the Immigration Bill?
As we know from part III, Senator Specter will be creating a markup of the Senate Immigration Bill. This may/may not contain the provisions that the immigrant community is looking for.
The differennt bills that are being considered for the markup are McCain Kennedy bill, Cornyn Kyl bill, the Chuck Hagel Bill and a few others
This document by AILA compares the various versions of the bill in different categories http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/immreform106.pdf. This also considers a markup of Senator Specter which is unofficial at the moment. This means that until it gets officially presented to the Judiciary Committee for review, it could change anytime.
This markup already seems to contain the provisions we need, what are we still worried about?
If you have read my post on S.1932, you would know that a bill can be amended at multiple stages.
1) Senator Specter could change his markup, after all he has not come out with an official version. Do not forget that the link above refers to an unofficial version of the markup. As per unconfirmed reports, the Chairman's markup could be out anytime between now and mid-march and a lot of things could change in the mean time
2) Assuming that the markup does contain the provisions that we as immigrants are fighting for, any judiciary committee member can propose an amendment to the bill which could result in a an unwanted change. A case in point is the amendment that Senator Diane Feinstein proposed during S.1932 which reduced the increase in H1B visas from 60,000 to 30,000. Imagine if a senator brings in an amendment that strips off all the provisions for legal immigration!
3) If the bill does not have strong support within the Judiciary committee, it could be voted out and it becomes history
4) Assuming that the bill passes through the above steps, it is presented to the full Senate for a debate and vote. Here too any member of the senate can propose an amendment to the bill and the house votes on it. A case in point is the Byrd Amendment which was introduced by Senate Byrd from Virginia which sought to drop sections 8001 and 8002 from the S.1932. This was defeated by the a margin of 84-15 but remember that if it had enough support, S.1932 would have ended here
5) Once the bill passes with the immigration provisions in the Senate, it is presented to a joint conference committee where a few senators and a few congressmen deliberate on which sections to include int he conference bill from among the House bill and the Senate bill. Remember that the house bill has already been passed (HR.4437) and it does not contain any immigration provisions. The House members could again force the senate representatives to drop the immigration provisions. The S.1932 bill's pro-immigration sections got dropped precisely at this juncture
So as can be seen, there are various stumbling blocks towards achieving a favorable bill.
The only way we can ensure that the pro-immigrant provisions do not get ignored or sacrificed is by lobbying. By lobbying we can ensure that the right folks at the right places can understand our concern and empathize with us.
A lobbying firm can ensure that we send a consistent and effective message to the right people. As mentioned earlier, some of the lobbying firms have ex-Congressmen and ex-Senators on their boards. These folks have a great working relationship with the current senators and congressmen. These lobbyists can not only get our issues be heard by the powers, they can possibly influence them by using some political capital
Why can't we just contact the lawmakers directly and tell them about it? Why spend money for lobbyists?
We can definitely try doing this ourselves. This is a free country and nothing stops us from doing so. Unfortunately the effectiveness of such a method is questionable.
During S.1932 proceedings, many members of this forum contacted their local congressmen and senators and asked for appointments. Many also conveyed their views to the staff and many also faxed their views in. Unfortunately the bill passed without the pro-immigration provisions. The message was not conveyed strongly enough and it was conveyed as individuals and not a group.
It was realized that unless we present our case the way Washington, DC is used to seeing it (by hiring lobbyists), the message will not get through.
Lobbyists have direct access to the actual congressmen and senators while the most we can hope is getting a key staff member's attention.
A lobbyist can influence a house member, while we can only hope that the staff members pass our views to the house member.
We do not know which members are really the ones to target and key decision makers and we might end up concentrating on the wrong house members. A lobbyist can help us identify these key members.
All in all, a lobbyist can help us use our energy in the right way and not end up wasting it doing frivolous things and ultimately help us achieve our dreams
And do not forget that some of the anti-immigration groups like numbersusa already have full time lobbyists working for them in DC. If we are to even put up a decent fight against these very dedicated anti-immigrant forces, we need to get help from a professional lobbying firm
more...
rmutyala
07-13 01:10 AM
What do you think is this big news coming out in 24 hours or on Monday?
I want to select more than one option :)
I want to select more than one option :)
hair Cristiano Ronaldo#39;s Safari
GCWaiter03
07-27 12:51 PM
Friends,
Finally my 485 is approved,
" On July 26, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS"
Long wait is over....
I thank IV core members and all others for their efforts and information.
Case details
EB3 - India
PD - Nov2003
RD - Aug 2004
Approved - 7/26/2007
RFE - Birth Certificate and 325, Yes replied last Sept.
ajkastar, Where did you filed your i-485. Is it NSC?
Mine is also in the same range of PD and RD, But I filed in NSC.
Thanks,
GCWaiter03
Finally my 485 is approved,
" On July 26, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS"
Long wait is over....
I thank IV core members and all others for their efforts and information.
Case details
EB3 - India
PD - Nov2003
RD - Aug 2004
Approved - 7/26/2007
RFE - Birth Certificate and 325, Yes replied last Sept.
ajkastar, Where did you filed your i-485. Is it NSC?
Mine is also in the same range of PD and RD, But I filed in NSC.
Thanks,
GCWaiter03
more...
rameshk
03-16 12:43 PM
Here is an article from yahoo.co.in
US start-up visa bill to boost entrepreneurship - Yahoo! India Finance (http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/US-start-visa-bill-boost-ians-3069398975.html)
===========================
Washington, March 15 (IANS) Two senior senators have introduced a bipartisan legislation aimed at slowing down the outflow of skilled talent and boost entrepreneurship in the US 'to drive job creation and increase America's global competitiveness'.
Introduced Monday by John Kerry, Democratic chairman, and Richard Lugar, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the bill adds provisions to last year's draft Startup Visa Act to allow foreign students in US universities and workers on H-1B visas to start companies in the US.
The StartUp Visa Act of 2011 will allow an immigrant entrepreneur to receive a two year visa if he or she can show that a qualified US investor is willing to invest in the immigrant's startup venture.
Under the updated version, the pool of eligible immigrants would now also include holders of H-1B visas and entrepreneurs living outside the US with a market presence in the country.
The new legislation provides visas to the following groups under certain conditions:
First: Entrepreneurs living outside the US - if a US investor agrees to financially sponsor their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $100,000.
Two years later, the startup must have created five new American jobs and either have raised over $500,000 in financing or be generating more than $500,000 in yearly revenue.
Second: Workers on an H-1B visa, or graduates from US universities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or computer science - if they have an annual income of at least $30,000 or assets of at least $60,000 and have had a US investor commit investment of at least $20,000 in their venture.
Two years later, the startup must have created three new American jobs and either have raised over $100,000 in financing or be generating more than $100,000 in yearly revenue.
Third: Foreign entrepreneurs whose business has generated at least $100,000 in sales from the US. Two years later, the startup must have created three new American jobs and either have raised over $100,000 in financing or be generating more than $100,000 in yearly revenue.
'Every job-creating American business started as an idea in the mind of an entrepreneur. We need to keep and bring more of those ideas to our shores where they can put Americans to work,' Kerry said.
'Global competition for talent and investment grows more intense daily and the United States must step up or be left behind,' he said.
'We want to establish a way for the smartest and most entrepreneurial individuals in the world to come to the United States and create jobs. Many are already here studying at our great universities,' said Lugar.
'Helping them stay to invest in their ideas and create jobs benefits all Americans.'
US start-up visa bill to boost entrepreneurship - Yahoo! India Finance (http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/US-start-visa-bill-boost-ians-3069398975.html)
===========================
Washington, March 15 (IANS) Two senior senators have introduced a bipartisan legislation aimed at slowing down the outflow of skilled talent and boost entrepreneurship in the US 'to drive job creation and increase America's global competitiveness'.
Introduced Monday by John Kerry, Democratic chairman, and Richard Lugar, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the bill adds provisions to last year's draft Startup Visa Act to allow foreign students in US universities and workers on H-1B visas to start companies in the US.
The StartUp Visa Act of 2011 will allow an immigrant entrepreneur to receive a two year visa if he or she can show that a qualified US investor is willing to invest in the immigrant's startup venture.
Under the updated version, the pool of eligible immigrants would now also include holders of H-1B visas and entrepreneurs living outside the US with a market presence in the country.
The new legislation provides visas to the following groups under certain conditions:
First: Entrepreneurs living outside the US - if a US investor agrees to financially sponsor their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $100,000.
Two years later, the startup must have created five new American jobs and either have raised over $500,000 in financing or be generating more than $500,000 in yearly revenue.
Second: Workers on an H-1B visa, or graduates from US universities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or computer science - if they have an annual income of at least $30,000 or assets of at least $60,000 and have had a US investor commit investment of at least $20,000 in their venture.
Two years later, the startup must have created three new American jobs and either have raised over $100,000 in financing or be generating more than $100,000 in yearly revenue.
Third: Foreign entrepreneurs whose business has generated at least $100,000 in sales from the US. Two years later, the startup must have created three new American jobs and either have raised over $100,000 in financing or be generating more than $100,000 in yearly revenue.
'Every job-creating American business started as an idea in the mind of an entrepreneur. We need to keep and bring more of those ideas to our shores where they can put Americans to work,' Kerry said.
'Global competition for talent and investment grows more intense daily and the United States must step up or be left behind,' he said.
'We want to establish a way for the smartest and most entrepreneurial individuals in the world to come to the United States and create jobs. Many are already here studying at our great universities,' said Lugar.
'Helping them stay to invest in their ideas and create jobs benefits all Americans.'
hot Cristiano Ronaldo (CR7)
BharatPremi
12-05 05:09 PM
BharatPremi,
No offense, but why have you opened 2 threads with very similar information and questions?.
Both threads can not be said "Similar". First one is related with Soft LUD and this one relates to strange 485 approval. So I do not know how did you derive similarity between them. Now general perception is that "SOFT LUD" means nothing. Mostly that perception seems to be correct but it is not always so. In my case, somebody at USCIS reentered the address and hence I got the soft LUD. When I called to USCIS I found about that and USCIS lady herself insisted then to verify my present address "because somebody made an entry today and that without change of address request". Another example I can give you is around 2 years back, I do not remember exact time period but general observation was after 10 days of having soft LUD on 485, people (Ofcourse some cases but considerable number so on many threads people discussed that at length...)used to see "Current" for visa bulletins and get card production ordered emails...
No offense, but why have you opened 2 threads with very similar information and questions?.
Both threads can not be said "Similar". First one is related with Soft LUD and this one relates to strange 485 approval. So I do not know how did you derive similarity between them. Now general perception is that "SOFT LUD" means nothing. Mostly that perception seems to be correct but it is not always so. In my case, somebody at USCIS reentered the address and hence I got the soft LUD. When I called to USCIS I found about that and USCIS lady herself insisted then to verify my present address "because somebody made an entry today and that without change of address request". Another example I can give you is around 2 years back, I do not remember exact time period but general observation was after 10 days of having soft LUD on 485, people (Ofcourse some cases but considerable number so on many threads people discussed that at length...)used to see "Current" for visa bulletins and get card production ordered emails...
more...
house from Cristiano Ronaldo,
ganguteli
06-02 11:31 AM
Recently, I made my own PP photos using http://www.epassportphoto.com/
This is a great service - It creates a jpeg file from a picture that you upload, and you can choose the "free" option in which you can save the jpeg file with 4-6 pictures in one frame (A 4" x 6" photo can yield 6 pp photos of 2" x 2"), and take it to Walgreens/Costco/Kinkos for a printout for $0.25 each. Otherwise you pay about $8-$12 for 2 photos at the same stores!!
For a family of 4, this equates to savings of ~ $40!!!
The site has all the tools for meeting various types of visa/pp/etc photo requirements for various countries.
Wow that is so Great!!!!!! You saved $40.
Now how about contributing it to IV?
This is a great service - It creates a jpeg file from a picture that you upload, and you can choose the "free" option in which you can save the jpeg file with 4-6 pictures in one frame (A 4" x 6" photo can yield 6 pp photos of 2" x 2"), and take it to Walgreens/Costco/Kinkos for a printout for $0.25 each. Otherwise you pay about $8-$12 for 2 photos at the same stores!!
For a family of 4, this equates to savings of ~ $40!!!
The site has all the tools for meeting various types of visa/pp/etc photo requirements for various countries.
Wow that is so Great!!!!!! You saved $40.
Now how about contributing it to IV?
tattoo cristiano ronaldo real
malibuguy007
10-03 12:49 PM
Guys funds are needed all the time, so please keep contributing. The amount being asked is less than 1% of your monthly salary - is that too high a price for YOUR cause?
more...
pictures cristiano Ronaldo+2011+
cherupally
09-05 11:37 AM
Does anybody has format for Non-availability of Birth Certificate? If yes, can somebody post the format please..
dresses Cristiano Ronaldo .
zico123
04-20 01:39 PM
As per Lawyer need to file for amendment before EAD expires. Need I-20 from Kaplan and another application fee ($190) + PP fee($1,000). :( But at least H1 is approved :)
New I-20 must be valid till Sept 30th and must start either before EAD expires or within grace period (EAD expiration date + 60 days)
** Best of luck to others still waiting **
New I-20 must be valid till Sept 30th and must start either before EAD expires or within grace period (EAD expiration date + 60 days)
** Best of luck to others still waiting **
more...
makeup star Cristiano Ronaldo
fortune50
07-27 02:53 PM
The receipts will be generated not by Priority Date but by Physically received date. This was obvious right from beginning, but some questions were raised on this forum.
Even though receipts are generated based on received date, I assume they will process by priority date , if not what is use of priority date after filing I-485?
Gurus, any body know how USCIS will process 485 applications?
Even though receipts are generated based on received date, I assume they will process by priority date , if not what is use of priority date after filing I-485?
Gurus, any body know how USCIS will process 485 applications?
girlfriend How do these oots differ from
xiaomatu
06-05 05:06 PM
Thanks for the reply. But like I mentioned, this case was approved on 5/8/2008 and the approval notice was sent on 5/8/2008 and received on 5/14/2008. Between 5/8/2008 and 5/22/2008 the status was "approved, approval notice sent".
Afterwards since 5/22/2008 the online status became "new documents sent on 5/22/2008, you should receive it within 30 days". I do not think this "new document" is the approval notice coz I even received it before they sent. Just curious what could this "New document" be. Would it change the status of my I-140 (like revoke or withdraw or RFE)?
Afterwards since 5/22/2008 the online status became "new documents sent on 5/22/2008, you should receive it within 30 days". I do not think this "new document" is the approval notice coz I even received it before they sent. Just curious what could this "New document" be. Would it change the status of my I-140 (like revoke or withdraw or RFE)?
hairstyles Jersey football oots
sobers
03-27 11:20 AM
Talks about skilled immigration...
Kudos to IV for all their efforts!!
The Other Immigrants
March 27, 2006; Page A16
Lost in the heated debate about the future of millions of illegal laborers in the U.S. is that our system for admitting foreign-born professionals is also in tatters.
While globalization has increased the competition for international talent, U.S. businesses are frustrated by processing delays, long backlogs and especially the failure of Congress to increase the annual limits on visas for skilled immigrants. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to resume its mark-up of Arlen Specter's immigration bill today. And the good news is that it contains long-overdue provisions for hiring more of the foreign professionals who help keep our economy competitive.
Under Mr. Specter's proposal, the annual cap on H-1B guest worker visas for immigrants in specialty fields like science and engineering would rise to 115,000 from 65,000. Moreover, the new cap would not be fixed but would fluctuate automatically in response to demand for these visas. We don't think any cap is necessary. But if a Republican Congress feels it must impose one, the least it can do is let market forces have some say in the matter.
Another important reform addresses foreign students who want to work here after graduating from U.S. colleges and universities. It doesn't make a lot of sense in today's global marketplace to educate the best and brightest and then send them away to England or India or China to start businesses and develop new technologies for U.S. competitors. But that's exactly what current U.S. policy encourages by limiting the employment prospects of foreign students who would rather stay here.
Mr. Specter would let more foreign students become permanent residents by obtaining an advanced degree in math, engineering, technology or the physical sciences and then finding work in their field. It's unfortunate that the U.S. isn't producing more home-grown talent in these areas, and the fault there lies with our K-12 educators and their political backers who tolerate poor performance. The reality today is that the U.S. ranks sixth world-wide in the number of people graduating with bachelor's degrees in engineering. Jobs will leave the U.S. and our economy will suffer if bad policy limits industry's access to intellectual capital.
Anti-immigration groups and protectionists want to dismiss these market forces, arguing that U.S. employers seek foreign nationals only because they'll work for less money. But it's illegal to pay these high-skill immigrants less than the prevailing wage. And employers are required to document their adherence to the law.
According to a new study by the National Foundation for American Policy, our broken system for admitting foreign professionals also contributes to outsourcing. Since 1996 the 65,000 annual cap on H-1B visas has been reached in most years, sometimes only weeks into the new year. This leaves employers with the choice of waiting until the next fiscal year to hire workers in the U.S. or hiring people outside the country.
"Many companies concede," says the report, "that the uncertainty created by Congress' inability to provide a reliable mechanism to hire skilled professionals has encouraged placing more human resources outside the United States to avoid being subject to legislative winds." Last week computer maker Dell Inc. announced that it hopes to double its workforce in India to 20,000 within three years. There's another such announcement by some company nearly every day.
This weekend's big-city immigration demonstrations focused on the debate over the estimated 11 million illegals already in the country. But the U.S. labor market has also long been a magnet for highly skilled and educated foreigners, many of whom attend school in America at some time in their lives. In a world where these brains have more options than ever in Asia and Europe, we drive them away at our economic peril.
Kudos to IV for all their efforts!!
The Other Immigrants
March 27, 2006; Page A16
Lost in the heated debate about the future of millions of illegal laborers in the U.S. is that our system for admitting foreign-born professionals is also in tatters.
While globalization has increased the competition for international talent, U.S. businesses are frustrated by processing delays, long backlogs and especially the failure of Congress to increase the annual limits on visas for skilled immigrants. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to resume its mark-up of Arlen Specter's immigration bill today. And the good news is that it contains long-overdue provisions for hiring more of the foreign professionals who help keep our economy competitive.
Under Mr. Specter's proposal, the annual cap on H-1B guest worker visas for immigrants in specialty fields like science and engineering would rise to 115,000 from 65,000. Moreover, the new cap would not be fixed but would fluctuate automatically in response to demand for these visas. We don't think any cap is necessary. But if a Republican Congress feels it must impose one, the least it can do is let market forces have some say in the matter.
Another important reform addresses foreign students who want to work here after graduating from U.S. colleges and universities. It doesn't make a lot of sense in today's global marketplace to educate the best and brightest and then send them away to England or India or China to start businesses and develop new technologies for U.S. competitors. But that's exactly what current U.S. policy encourages by limiting the employment prospects of foreign students who would rather stay here.
Mr. Specter would let more foreign students become permanent residents by obtaining an advanced degree in math, engineering, technology or the physical sciences and then finding work in their field. It's unfortunate that the U.S. isn't producing more home-grown talent in these areas, and the fault there lies with our K-12 educators and their political backers who tolerate poor performance. The reality today is that the U.S. ranks sixth world-wide in the number of people graduating with bachelor's degrees in engineering. Jobs will leave the U.S. and our economy will suffer if bad policy limits industry's access to intellectual capital.
Anti-immigration groups and protectionists want to dismiss these market forces, arguing that U.S. employers seek foreign nationals only because they'll work for less money. But it's illegal to pay these high-skill immigrants less than the prevailing wage. And employers are required to document their adherence to the law.
According to a new study by the National Foundation for American Policy, our broken system for admitting foreign professionals also contributes to outsourcing. Since 1996 the 65,000 annual cap on H-1B visas has been reached in most years, sometimes only weeks into the new year. This leaves employers with the choice of waiting until the next fiscal year to hire workers in the U.S. or hiring people outside the country.
"Many companies concede," says the report, "that the uncertainty created by Congress' inability to provide a reliable mechanism to hire skilled professionals has encouraged placing more human resources outside the United States to avoid being subject to legislative winds." Last week computer maker Dell Inc. announced that it hopes to double its workforce in India to 20,000 within three years. There's another such announcement by some company nearly every day.
This weekend's big-city immigration demonstrations focused on the debate over the estimated 11 million illegals already in the country. But the U.S. labor market has also long been a magnet for highly skilled and educated foreigners, many of whom attend school in America at some time in their lives. In a world where these brains have more options than ever in Asia and Europe, we drive them away at our economic peril.
cal97
08-20 08:01 PM
I am a July 2nd filed with PD 06/2004 and waiting .....
coolmanasip
08-16 08:06 PM
Kondur - First, thanks for your reply. Its all volunteer time here and I appreciate your time to help me out.
The way I read it, and its not becos I want to read it like that, the AC21 memo all the time talks about "Same or similar occupational classification" not same/similar job. There is a world of difference here. Same job means we have to be the same engineer or programmer that we were about 4 yrs ago. Thats not the intent of the law. The law says occupational classification, which means job category.....Engineering or whatever we do....so I think there is a difference....
I checked my current SOC code and that is under 17-2051- Civil Engineer...The SOC language also says this "Supervisors of major professions groups 13-29 (including 17) have experience and perform the same duties as the workers they supervise and hence are classified in the same group" ---- This tells me that if you oversee engineers doing technical work, that is fine.
Now, the management part of the "Director" title is a concern. So,if we take that into account, in worst the classification would be under 11-9141- Architectural and Engineering Managers. Which, I believe, would still qualify under the (if not same) similar occupational classification. On DOL website, under 11-9141, in related occupations - one of them is 17-2051 Civil Engineer. So, again, I think we should meet same/similar occupational classification.
I talked to one of the lawyers from Murthy firm, and they seem to see this as meeting the requirements. While she did say that I was pushing the envelope, she said CIS is pretty liberal in this interpretation and would not be an issue.
Having said this, is there a possibility that CIS could get restrictive about their interpretation - absolutely! And there is that risk that would jeopardize the whole process....so, here we are, insulting our own intelligence because an agency would not define in black and white what is acceptable and what is not.....
sorry for a long rant.....have not decide what to do yet.....realistically, GC should be here in another 10 months.....thanks for your time
The way I read it, and its not becos I want to read it like that, the AC21 memo all the time talks about "Same or similar occupational classification" not same/similar job. There is a world of difference here. Same job means we have to be the same engineer or programmer that we were about 4 yrs ago. Thats not the intent of the law. The law says occupational classification, which means job category.....Engineering or whatever we do....so I think there is a difference....
I checked my current SOC code and that is under 17-2051- Civil Engineer...The SOC language also says this "Supervisors of major professions groups 13-29 (including 17) have experience and perform the same duties as the workers they supervise and hence are classified in the same group" ---- This tells me that if you oversee engineers doing technical work, that is fine.
Now, the management part of the "Director" title is a concern. So,if we take that into account, in worst the classification would be under 11-9141- Architectural and Engineering Managers. Which, I believe, would still qualify under the (if not same) similar occupational classification. On DOL website, under 11-9141, in related occupations - one of them is 17-2051 Civil Engineer. So, again, I think we should meet same/similar occupational classification.
I talked to one of the lawyers from Murthy firm, and they seem to see this as meeting the requirements. While she did say that I was pushing the envelope, she said CIS is pretty liberal in this interpretation and would not be an issue.
Having said this, is there a possibility that CIS could get restrictive about their interpretation - absolutely! And there is that risk that would jeopardize the whole process....so, here we are, insulting our own intelligence because an agency would not define in black and white what is acceptable and what is not.....
sorry for a long rant.....have not decide what to do yet.....realistically, GC should be here in another 10 months.....thanks for your time
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий