Macaca
01-28 09:03 AM
There is a pledge for $75 and recurring pledges in another forum.
wallpaper emo quotes. Dre55
jatinr
07-26 09:10 AM
Bibs:
To apply for EAD you need the following documents
1. I-131 EAD Application document
2. Copy of I-485 receipt notice
3. 2 colored passport pictures - recent
4. Cashiers cheque as stated in the form.
Send all this in and wait. You dont need an attorney to do this. This is really a simple procedure.
I 765 EAD Application document.
To apply for EAD you need the following documents
1. I-131 EAD Application document
2. Copy of I-485 receipt notice
3. 2 colored passport pictures - recent
4. Cashiers cheque as stated in the form.
Send all this in and wait. You dont need an attorney to do this. This is really a simple procedure.
I 765 EAD Application document.
sankap
07-05 03:28 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB118359095890657571.html
Reversal Frustrates Green-Card Applicants
By MIRIAM JORDAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: July 5, 2007
The U.S. government's surprise offer, then abrupt reversal, of an opportunity for thousands of skilled foreign workers to obtain permanent residency in the U.S. highlights the problems of the overtaxed immigration system and the frenzy that results from a rare chance to apply for a green card.
The scramble has put tens of thousands of workers and their families in limbo after many of them and their employers spent thousands of dollars in hopes of securing permanent residency. It may result in a class-action lawsuit against the government by frustrated applicants.
The problem began June 12 when the government seemed to open the door for thousands of foreign workers and their families to end the long wait to apply for a green card. That is when the State Department published a Visa Bulletin, which is a monthly notice closely watched by immigration attorneys and their clients because it determines who is eligible to file a green-card application the next month. The June bulletin announced that practically all skilled foreign workers who had been previously deemed eligible for an employer-sponsored visa could now take the final step of applying for a green card.
By law, the U.S. can issue about 140,000 employment-based green cards each year. Last year, the government fell short by about 10,000, despite the long waiting list; leftover visas can't be rolled over to the next year. The June announcement aimed to prevent the visa slot from going to waste, according to a State Department spokeswoman.
[Green-Card Limbo]
The announcement was greeted with a mix of jubilation and panic by thousands of engineers, lab scientists and other high-skilled foreigners who had waited years for their place in line. Working ahead of a July 2 date for filing the application, intending immigrants rushed to gather documents, complete paperwork and obtain medical exams. Many of their dependents -- such as children enrolled in college overseas -- boarded planes for the U.S. to meet a requirement that all family members be present at the time of filing.
"The bulletin created a land rush among legal immigrants desperate to finalize their green-card applications," said Steve Miller, a Seattle-based immigration attorney and head of the state chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Then, on July 2, the State Department issued an "update" that reversed the previous bulletin. It stated, effective immediately, there would be no further authorizations for employment-based cases. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which processes the applications, said it would instead simply process existing applications to meet this year's quota. "We already had sufficient applications pending without new applicants," an agency spokesman said.
Mike Aytes, head of domestic operations for the USCIS, said all 147,141 employment-based green cards have now been issued for the year. "We are very sympathetic to the fact that people really had expectations � Folks spent a lot of time and effort, but it turned out they couldn't file, after all," he said.
In the July 2 announcement, USCIS said it was "rejecting applications" to secure green cards, and the agency spokesman said it would return the paperwork of all the applicants. New cases will be entertained again in the government's next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1. However, applicants must wait their turn again, which might not happen for years.
News of the revocation of the previously announced bulletin dashed the hopes of thousands of foreign workers, many of them currently on an H-1B professional visa normally valid for up to six years. These workers face the possibility of being forced to return home if their visa expires before they get the chance to apply for a green card.
"My employer and I spent tens of thousands of dollars preparing for the day when we could file for our Change in Status application, only to have the [government] pull the rug out from under us," said Lawrence LeBlanc, a Canadian executive at AES Corp. in Arlington, Virginia. "We were devastated to hear this unprecedented news. We're not sure how we're going to tell our children."
Because there are more employer-based applicants for immigrant visas than are available each year, people wait each month to see whether they have gotten to the front of the line. Often people wait years for the green light to apply, especially if they come from countries like India and China.
The June 12 announcement set off a stampede to government-approved doctors, because green-card applicants must pass medical exams. Apurva Pratap, a Seattle-based senior manager for a multinational corporation, said he and his wife traveled 40 miles for a medical exam after they couldn't secure an appointment in town. To fulfill a requirement for a vaccination, they waited eight hours in a line that snaked around a mobile unit in Tacoma. Mr. Pratap, a native of India, has been in the U.S. since 1999.
A spokeswoman for the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it has called for a congressional investigation. An affiliated organization is expected to take legal action via a class-action lawsuit. "This is an example of how badly our immigration system is broken," says Kathleen Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com1
Reversal Frustrates Green-Card Applicants
By MIRIAM JORDAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: July 5, 2007
The U.S. government's surprise offer, then abrupt reversal, of an opportunity for thousands of skilled foreign workers to obtain permanent residency in the U.S. highlights the problems of the overtaxed immigration system and the frenzy that results from a rare chance to apply for a green card.
The scramble has put tens of thousands of workers and their families in limbo after many of them and their employers spent thousands of dollars in hopes of securing permanent residency. It may result in a class-action lawsuit against the government by frustrated applicants.
The problem began June 12 when the government seemed to open the door for thousands of foreign workers and their families to end the long wait to apply for a green card. That is when the State Department published a Visa Bulletin, which is a monthly notice closely watched by immigration attorneys and their clients because it determines who is eligible to file a green-card application the next month. The June bulletin announced that practically all skilled foreign workers who had been previously deemed eligible for an employer-sponsored visa could now take the final step of applying for a green card.
By law, the U.S. can issue about 140,000 employment-based green cards each year. Last year, the government fell short by about 10,000, despite the long waiting list; leftover visas can't be rolled over to the next year. The June announcement aimed to prevent the visa slot from going to waste, according to a State Department spokeswoman.
[Green-Card Limbo]
The announcement was greeted with a mix of jubilation and panic by thousands of engineers, lab scientists and other high-skilled foreigners who had waited years for their place in line. Working ahead of a July 2 date for filing the application, intending immigrants rushed to gather documents, complete paperwork and obtain medical exams. Many of their dependents -- such as children enrolled in college overseas -- boarded planes for the U.S. to meet a requirement that all family members be present at the time of filing.
"The bulletin created a land rush among legal immigrants desperate to finalize their green-card applications," said Steve Miller, a Seattle-based immigration attorney and head of the state chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Then, on July 2, the State Department issued an "update" that reversed the previous bulletin. It stated, effective immediately, there would be no further authorizations for employment-based cases. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which processes the applications, said it would instead simply process existing applications to meet this year's quota. "We already had sufficient applications pending without new applicants," an agency spokesman said.
Mike Aytes, head of domestic operations for the USCIS, said all 147,141 employment-based green cards have now been issued for the year. "We are very sympathetic to the fact that people really had expectations � Folks spent a lot of time and effort, but it turned out they couldn't file, after all," he said.
In the July 2 announcement, USCIS said it was "rejecting applications" to secure green cards, and the agency spokesman said it would return the paperwork of all the applicants. New cases will be entertained again in the government's next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1. However, applicants must wait their turn again, which might not happen for years.
News of the revocation of the previously announced bulletin dashed the hopes of thousands of foreign workers, many of them currently on an H-1B professional visa normally valid for up to six years. These workers face the possibility of being forced to return home if their visa expires before they get the chance to apply for a green card.
"My employer and I spent tens of thousands of dollars preparing for the day when we could file for our Change in Status application, only to have the [government] pull the rug out from under us," said Lawrence LeBlanc, a Canadian executive at AES Corp. in Arlington, Virginia. "We were devastated to hear this unprecedented news. We're not sure how we're going to tell our children."
Because there are more employer-based applicants for immigrant visas than are available each year, people wait each month to see whether they have gotten to the front of the line. Often people wait years for the green light to apply, especially if they come from countries like India and China.
The June 12 announcement set off a stampede to government-approved doctors, because green-card applicants must pass medical exams. Apurva Pratap, a Seattle-based senior manager for a multinational corporation, said he and his wife traveled 40 miles for a medical exam after they couldn't secure an appointment in town. To fulfill a requirement for a vaccination, they waited eight hours in a line that snaked around a mobile unit in Tacoma. Mr. Pratap, a native of India, has been in the U.S. since 1999.
A spokeswoman for the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it has called for a congressional investigation. An affiliated organization is expected to take legal action via a class-action lawsuit. "This is an example of how badly our immigration system is broken," says Kathleen Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com1
2011 i miss you emo quotes. i love
arc
10-04 01:38 PM
Hey Fellow IVers who had filed application at NSC and it was transferred to CSC and back to NSC pls. take the poll and keep updating your statistics!
Pls. also update your statistics with RN date if you are not eligible on the poll but your case was transferred...
Pls. also update your statistics with RN date if you are not eligible on the poll but your case was transferred...
more...
meridiani.planum
03-10 08:21 PM
Hi,
I have filed 140/485 for myself and wife as dependant. Unfortunately, there is a RFE on 140 and wife still has not recieved the EAD. I have just realized that my wife's H1 B 6 years will expire in another 4 months.
What are the options to extend my wife's H1B beyond 6 years as she doesnt have the LC on her name.? I have another 2 years left on my h1b.
Please adivse.
Thanks and Regards
the only way to extend the H1 is to:
- have an LC >365 days old
- her I-140 approved
Without either of those she does not qualify for H1 extensions. Best bet if EAD takes longer than 4 more months (should not, most people have got it within 90 days) and she cannot stop working for a while might be to try and recapture time spent abroad (to fully utilize the 6 years). If you were on vacation or travelling on business, hten all those days spent abroad can be used as additional H1 time. if thats been 4-5 months in ht elast 6 years, it might be worth recapturing...
I have filed 140/485 for myself and wife as dependant. Unfortunately, there is a RFE on 140 and wife still has not recieved the EAD. I have just realized that my wife's H1 B 6 years will expire in another 4 months.
What are the options to extend my wife's H1B beyond 6 years as she doesnt have the LC on her name.? I have another 2 years left on my h1b.
Please adivse.
Thanks and Regards
the only way to extend the H1 is to:
- have an LC >365 days old
- her I-140 approved
Without either of those she does not qualify for H1 extensions. Best bet if EAD takes longer than 4 more months (should not, most people have got it within 90 days) and she cannot stop working for a while might be to try and recapture time spent abroad (to fully utilize the 6 years). If you were on vacation or travelling on business, hten all those days spent abroad can be used as additional H1 time. if thats been 4-5 months in ht elast 6 years, it might be worth recapturing...
martinvisalaw
07-16 03:00 PM
Hi,
What are my options here? Is there a way this case can be fixed and brought back on track or am I in a no-go situation? Please advise on the next steps.
You can refile the 485, if your priority date is current. However, if you filed in the crush of 485s done in Aug 2007, I suspect that your priority date is now backlogged again.
Hopefully you do have H-1B status. Otherwise, as the prior poster says, you are no longer authorized to be in the US.
I don't know if the MTR can be appealed in any way, it depends on how it was filed and why it was denied.
As regards filing a formal complaint against the attorney - that varies by state. You can check your state bar rules about this. It was a very unfortunate mistake to miss one question on the 485, but probably not serious enough for the state bar to impose any sanctions.
What are my options here? Is there a way this case can be fixed and brought back on track or am I in a no-go situation? Please advise on the next steps.
You can refile the 485, if your priority date is current. However, if you filed in the crush of 485s done in Aug 2007, I suspect that your priority date is now backlogged again.
Hopefully you do have H-1B status. Otherwise, as the prior poster says, you are no longer authorized to be in the US.
I don't know if the MTR can be appealed in any way, it depends on how it was filed and why it was denied.
As regards filing a formal complaint against the attorney - that varies by state. You can check your state bar rules about this. It was a very unfortunate mistake to miss one question on the 485, but probably not serious enough for the state bar to impose any sanctions.
more...
TeddyKoochu
01-26 12:54 PM
I have been working in US continously since May 2003. I have not committed a single crime other than an occasional traffic ticket. I have a fantastic work ethic and can give tons of references of clients and people who I have worked with. I have paid taxes at the rate 25% to 28% in the last 6 years. I pay property taxes. I have never missed or been late on a single credit card or rent or bill payment. I have excellent credit history. After 6 years now recently I wanted to go to India to see my ailing father who had a heart attack and my attorney warned me that since I am on H1 visa and working as a consultant and am not a full time employee I should NOT go to India since the US consulate in India is rejecting or deffering issuing of visas quoting various reasons. They are basically trying to make life miserable for people regardless of their experience or value they bring to the table. What am I supposed to do? Do you just want me to go back to India - is that the end game here? I will if thats what you want. I will pull my money from the US economy I have invested in. Stop paying county and property and federal taxes. Stop paying license fees every year to the county. I will stop paying the humongous H1B visa extension fees. I hope this is what you want as you build your country's future with illegal immigrants whom you seem to favor more than people who are here legally. I wont even tell you how frustrating it has been to wait for Green Card which seems beyond possible!
Amazingly well said, great.
Amazingly well said, great.
2010 Emo Love Quotes. love quotes
tinku01
07-22 05:47 PM
Hi, I need to get Police Clearace Certificate (PCC) from India at local police station. Anybody has any format of PCC I mean what they need to write in it.
It's quite urgent ..please update ASAP
It's quite urgent ..please update ASAP
more...
beibei2929
05-15 01:20 PM
Hi, Guys:
My old H-1b will expire on June 30 2007. My employer has applied the new H-1b extension, but it is still pending. I am planning to go back to my country this summer and try to apply for H-1 visa in US embassy in early June. My question is whether I can apply for H-1 visa using the old one (expire on June 30) while the new one is pending. How long will be my H-1 visa valid (usually 3-month in my country)? Will I get 3-month or till the expirating date(June 30)? Can I come back to US? Many thanks.
My old H-1b will expire on June 30 2007. My employer has applied the new H-1b extension, but it is still pending. I am planning to go back to my country this summer and try to apply for H-1 visa in US embassy in early June. My question is whether I can apply for H-1 visa using the old one (expire on June 30) while the new one is pending. How long will be my H-1 visa valid (usually 3-month in my country)? Will I get 3-month or till the expirating date(June 30)? Can I come back to US? Many thanks.
hair emo love hurts quotes. day quotes emofunny love
rpat1968
07-15 08:16 PM
Why blame USCIS when you classify yourself as EB3!
Your profile says you are EB3. I hope it was put by you not by USCIS.
May be your I-140 was also for EB3, a misclassification by you. Do you remember?
Don't just post without knowing the facts. See my response I posted.
Your profile says you are EB3. I hope it was put by you not by USCIS.
May be your I-140 was also for EB3, a misclassification by you. Do you remember?
Don't just post without knowing the facts. See my response I posted.
more...
sobers
02-16 04:11 PM
This story below just goes to show that if smart scientists and engineers are not available here (because of low skilled immigation and the decepit STEM education), then jobs will continue to be outsourced to where the job can be done. Not only does the U.S. lose brainpower, it loses significant tax revenue which would otherwise have been available if the jobs were located in the U.S. And then, not only do skilled immigrants bring their skills to work for America, they also help build the local economy (home/auto, other capital investments, etc besides local/state/county taxes...).
-------------
NEW YORK TIMES
By STEVE LOHR
Published: February 16, 2006
The globalization of work tends to start from the bottom up. The first jobs to be moved abroad are typically simple assembly tasks, followed by manufacturing, and later, skilled work like computer programming. At the end of this progression is the work done by scientists and engineers in research and development laboratories.
Skip to next paragraph
Report From Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation A new study that will be presented today to the National Academies, the nation's leading advisory groups on science and technology, suggests that more and more research work at corporations will be sent to fast-growing economies with strong education systems, like China and India.
In a survey of more than 200 multinational corporations on their research center decisions, 38 percent said they planned to "change substantially" the worldwide distribution of their research and development work over the next three years � with the booming markets of China and India, and their world-class scientists, attracting the greatest increase in projects.
Whether placing research centers in their home countries or overseas, the study said, companies often use similar criteria. The quality of scientists and engineers and their proximity to research centers are crucial.
The study contended that lower labor costs in emerging markets are not the major reason for hiring researchers overseas, though they are a consideration. Tax incentives do not matter much, it said.
Instead, the report found that multinational corporations were global shoppers for talent. The companies want to nurture close links with leading universities in emerging markets to work with professors and to hire promising graduates.
"The story comes through loud and clear in the data," said Marie Thursby, an author of the study and a professor at Georgia Tech's college of management. "You have to have an environment that fosters the development of a high-quality work force and productive collaboration between corporations and universities if America wants to maintain a competitive advantage in research and development."
The multinationals, representing 15 industries, were from the United States and Western Europe. The authors said there was no statistically significant difference between the American and European companies.
Dow Chemical is one company that plans to invest heavily in new research and development centers in China and India. It is building a research center in Shanghai, which will employ 600 technical workers when it is completed next year. Dow is also finishing plans for a large installation in India, said William F. Banholzer, Dow's chief technology officer.
Today, the company employs 5,700 scientists worldwide, about 4,000 of them in the United States and Canada, and most of the rest in Europe. But the moves overseas will alter that. "There will be a major shift for us," Mr. Banholzer said.
The swift economic growth in China and India, he said, is part of the appeal because products and processes often have to be tailored for local conditions. The rising skill of the scientists abroad is another reason. "There are so many smart people over there," Mr. Banholzer said. "There is no monopoly on brains, and none on education either."
Such views were echoed by other senior technology executives, whose companies are increasing their research employment abroad. "We go with the flow, to find the best minds we can anywhere in the world," said Nicholas M. Donofrio, executive vice president for technology and innovation at I.B.M., which first set up research labs in India and China in the 1990's. The company is announcing today that it is opening a software and services lab in Bangalore, India.
At Hewlett-Packard, which opened an Indian lab in 2002 and is starting one in China, Richard H. Lampman, senior vice president for research, points to the spread of innovation around the world. "If your company is going to be a global leader, you have to understand what's going on in the rest of the world," he said.
The globalization of research investment, industry executives and academics argued, need not harm the United States. In research, as in economics, they said, growth abroad does not mean stagnation at home � and typically the benefits outweigh the costs.
Still, more companies in the survey said they planned to decrease research and development employment in the United States and Europe than planned to increase employment.
In numerical terms, scientists and engineers in research labs represent a relatively small part of the national work force. Like the debate about offshore outsourcing in general, the trend, which may point to a loss of competitiveness, is more significant than the quantity of jobs involved.
The American executives who are planning to send work abroad express concern about what they regard as an incipient erosion of scientific prowess in this country, pointing to the lagging math and science proficiency of American high school students and the reluctance of some college graduates to pursue careers in science and engineering.
"For a company, the reality is that we have a lot of options," Mr. Banholzer of Dow Chemical said. "But my personal worry is that an educated, innovative science and engineering work force is vital to the economy. If that slips, it is going to hurt the United States in the long run."
Some university administrators see the same trend. "This is part of an incredible tectonic shift that is occurring," said A. Richard Newton, dean of the college of engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, "and we've got to think about this more profoundly than we have in the past. Berkeley and other leading American universities, he said, are now competing in a global market for talent. His strategy is to become an aggressive acquirer. He is trying to get Tsinghua University in Beijing and some leading technical universities in India to set up satellite schools linked to Berkeley. The university has 90 acres in Richmond, Calif., that he thinks would be an ideal site.
"I want to get them here, make Berkeley the intellectual hub of the planet, and they won't leave," said Mr. Newton, who emigrated from Australia 25 years ago.
The corporate research survey was financed by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which supports studies on innovation. It was designed and written by Ms. Thursby, who is also a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and her husband, Jerry Thursby, who is chairman of the economics department at Emory University in Atlanta.
-------------
NEW YORK TIMES
By STEVE LOHR
Published: February 16, 2006
The globalization of work tends to start from the bottom up. The first jobs to be moved abroad are typically simple assembly tasks, followed by manufacturing, and later, skilled work like computer programming. At the end of this progression is the work done by scientists and engineers in research and development laboratories.
Skip to next paragraph
Report From Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation A new study that will be presented today to the National Academies, the nation's leading advisory groups on science and technology, suggests that more and more research work at corporations will be sent to fast-growing economies with strong education systems, like China and India.
In a survey of more than 200 multinational corporations on their research center decisions, 38 percent said they planned to "change substantially" the worldwide distribution of their research and development work over the next three years � with the booming markets of China and India, and their world-class scientists, attracting the greatest increase in projects.
Whether placing research centers in their home countries or overseas, the study said, companies often use similar criteria. The quality of scientists and engineers and their proximity to research centers are crucial.
The study contended that lower labor costs in emerging markets are not the major reason for hiring researchers overseas, though they are a consideration. Tax incentives do not matter much, it said.
Instead, the report found that multinational corporations were global shoppers for talent. The companies want to nurture close links with leading universities in emerging markets to work with professors and to hire promising graduates.
"The story comes through loud and clear in the data," said Marie Thursby, an author of the study and a professor at Georgia Tech's college of management. "You have to have an environment that fosters the development of a high-quality work force and productive collaboration between corporations and universities if America wants to maintain a competitive advantage in research and development."
The multinationals, representing 15 industries, were from the United States and Western Europe. The authors said there was no statistically significant difference between the American and European companies.
Dow Chemical is one company that plans to invest heavily in new research and development centers in China and India. It is building a research center in Shanghai, which will employ 600 technical workers when it is completed next year. Dow is also finishing plans for a large installation in India, said William F. Banholzer, Dow's chief technology officer.
Today, the company employs 5,700 scientists worldwide, about 4,000 of them in the United States and Canada, and most of the rest in Europe. But the moves overseas will alter that. "There will be a major shift for us," Mr. Banholzer said.
The swift economic growth in China and India, he said, is part of the appeal because products and processes often have to be tailored for local conditions. The rising skill of the scientists abroad is another reason. "There are so many smart people over there," Mr. Banholzer said. "There is no monopoly on brains, and none on education either."
Such views were echoed by other senior technology executives, whose companies are increasing their research employment abroad. "We go with the flow, to find the best minds we can anywhere in the world," said Nicholas M. Donofrio, executive vice president for technology and innovation at I.B.M., which first set up research labs in India and China in the 1990's. The company is announcing today that it is opening a software and services lab in Bangalore, India.
At Hewlett-Packard, which opened an Indian lab in 2002 and is starting one in China, Richard H. Lampman, senior vice president for research, points to the spread of innovation around the world. "If your company is going to be a global leader, you have to understand what's going on in the rest of the world," he said.
The globalization of research investment, industry executives and academics argued, need not harm the United States. In research, as in economics, they said, growth abroad does not mean stagnation at home � and typically the benefits outweigh the costs.
Still, more companies in the survey said they planned to decrease research and development employment in the United States and Europe than planned to increase employment.
In numerical terms, scientists and engineers in research labs represent a relatively small part of the national work force. Like the debate about offshore outsourcing in general, the trend, which may point to a loss of competitiveness, is more significant than the quantity of jobs involved.
The American executives who are planning to send work abroad express concern about what they regard as an incipient erosion of scientific prowess in this country, pointing to the lagging math and science proficiency of American high school students and the reluctance of some college graduates to pursue careers in science and engineering.
"For a company, the reality is that we have a lot of options," Mr. Banholzer of Dow Chemical said. "But my personal worry is that an educated, innovative science and engineering work force is vital to the economy. If that slips, it is going to hurt the United States in the long run."
Some university administrators see the same trend. "This is part of an incredible tectonic shift that is occurring," said A. Richard Newton, dean of the college of engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, "and we've got to think about this more profoundly than we have in the past. Berkeley and other leading American universities, he said, are now competing in a global market for talent. His strategy is to become an aggressive acquirer. He is trying to get Tsinghua University in Beijing and some leading technical universities in India to set up satellite schools linked to Berkeley. The university has 90 acres in Richmond, Calif., that he thinks would be an ideal site.
"I want to get them here, make Berkeley the intellectual hub of the planet, and they won't leave," said Mr. Newton, who emigrated from Australia 25 years ago.
The corporate research survey was financed by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which supports studies on innovation. It was designed and written by Ms. Thursby, who is also a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and her husband, Jerry Thursby, who is chairman of the economics department at Emory University in Atlanta.
hot emo quotes Image
saketkapur
08-18 06:22 PM
please pardon my ignorance but I was under the assumption that labor subsitution policy was discontinued by the USCIS on july 16 2007...........
please correct me if I am wrong or not reading the particulars of this case correctly.......
please correct me if I am wrong or not reading the particulars of this case correctly.......
more...
house Emo Love Quotes
Dhundhun
10-09 07:06 PM
Basically, the VB just says that "Even though you waited for however number of years, gone through all the pains with employers, you are NO closer to getting GC than you were a month ago"
How pathetic is our situation? Every time I think of it as the bottom,there is a new low next month? It's just a never ending tale.
Very much true.
How pathetic is our situation? Every time I think of it as the bottom,there is a new low next month? It's just a never ending tale.
Very much true.
tattoo funny emo quotes and sayings
gcseeker2002
04-28 05:50 PM
Below is my understanding as I searched for answer sometime back.
yes, you can change employer. You have to get into similar job. The only problem is your H1 extension. For that, the old employer should not revoke the I 140. You old labor should be valid until you finish the GC process.
If anyone thinks othewise, letme know.
There is a major thread in this forum about changing jobs after 140 and keeping old PD if we file new labor and 140 with new employer. Many people even confirmed this with their lawyers, now why is the issue of Ac21 not invokable coming up?? If you have approved 140 go ahead, get your 3 yr extension of h1b and transfer it to some other employer, only problem, you have to restart the process but will get old PD after labor.
yes, you can change employer. You have to get into similar job. The only problem is your H1 extension. For that, the old employer should not revoke the I 140. You old labor should be valid until you finish the GC process.
If anyone thinks othewise, letme know.
There is a major thread in this forum about changing jobs after 140 and keeping old PD if we file new labor and 140 with new employer. Many people even confirmed this with their lawyers, now why is the issue of Ac21 not invokable coming up?? If you have approved 140 go ahead, get your 3 yr extension of h1b and transfer it to some other employer, only problem, you have to restart the process but will get old PD after labor.
more...
pictures love quotes emo. emo love
saibabu_d
06-17 11:16 PM
USCIS has a list of diseases they check for on their website, and herpes is not one of them. If it is, more than 10% of the people applying for GC will be rejected. So, you are fine.
dresses emo quotes
viva
01-27 08:02 PM
Forget it....It seems there is no interest in people contributing to this site..
cowards...misers....u will repent your miserliness when you do not get any bill with green card relief......at that time, it will too late to do anything.....
cowards...misers....u will repent your miserliness when you do not get any bill with green card relief......at that time, it will too late to do anything.....
more...
makeup for her. emo love quotes
sbabunle
08-24 06:41 PM
Hello GreatGuy
You can be a lil more cordious and polite :rolleyes:
At least if you expect somebody to answer your question.
Hey guys knock it off. Labor substitution is legally allowed
till date. If this guy get a pre approved labor let him accept
it and get ahead. Nobody blocks you to accept pre approved
labor. I'm retrogressed with PD of 2003 on EB3 India. But for
that reason I dont think I'm going to shout at somebody using
a pre approved labor and get ahead of me.
Now to answer you question Mr GREAT.
DOL can replace if its not approved. Mainly they look at the
education and experience.
This situation can be a lil dicey. If I were you I would
get the reference no or something of that labor cert and verify
all the details. Secondly I would do a thorough research on this
employer. It would have been a lil better if its already approved.
On 2002 I got a pre approved labor offer. I got a copy of
the labor from this employer and had it looked by an attorney.
Atty said its a lil risky to accept it. So I did not take it.
Good luck GREAT. I expect you to be a lil more polite on these
forums.
You can be a lil more cordious and polite :rolleyes:
At least if you expect somebody to answer your question.
Hey guys knock it off. Labor substitution is legally allowed
till date. If this guy get a pre approved labor let him accept
it and get ahead. Nobody blocks you to accept pre approved
labor. I'm retrogressed with PD of 2003 on EB3 India. But for
that reason I dont think I'm going to shout at somebody using
a pre approved labor and get ahead of me.
Now to answer you question Mr GREAT.
DOL can replace if its not approved. Mainly they look at the
education and experience.
This situation can be a lil dicey. If I were you I would
get the reference no or something of that labor cert and verify
all the details. Secondly I would do a thorough research on this
employer. It would have been a lil better if its already approved.
On 2002 I got a pre approved labor offer. I got a copy of
the labor from this employer and had it looked by an attorney.
Atty said its a lil risky to accept it. So I did not take it.
Good luck GREAT. I expect you to be a lil more polite on these
forums.
girlfriend emo love quotes and poems. emo
Blog Feeds
04-26 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
All eyes are on Governor Jan Brewer today.
On her desk is SB 1070, an anti-immigrant bill which would effectively make all Latinos the target of arrest or interrogation, whether or not they are U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants, or undocumented foreign nationals. Indeed, such a hate-motivated bill may well compel all Latinos to pack up and leave the state. Brewer's choice is clear to anyone who cherishes freedom and democracy�veto SB 1070, and toss it into the dust bin of history where it belongs, together with Jim Crow, the Nazi Nuremberg laws, and South African Apartheid.
But, believe it or not, the Governor is actually considering signing this venomous bill into law. Last night, in yet another surreal Arizona moment Governor Brewer addressed the 41st annual Chicanos Por La Causa anniversary dinner amid calls in the audience for her to veto SB 1070 and surrounded by protesters that chanted and marched outside the Sheraton Phoenix Downtown Hotel where the dinner was held. At the dinner, organization board chairwoman Erica Gonzalez-Melendez urged Brewer to veto "the most hateful piece of legislation directed at Latinos" aptly pointing out that SB 1070 will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system and only "panders to the racist fear mongers of our state." But, Governor Brewer refused to say what she would do, invoking political-speak instead, "I am not prepared to announce a decision on Senate Bill 1070," she said. "What I decide will be based on what's right for Arizona." http://bit.ly/96KJlT. (Note to reader: there have been several surreal moments in Arizona this week. On Monday Senator John McCain, who once described himself as a "maverick" and champion of comprehensive immigration reform, told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that "the drivers of cars with illegals in it ... are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway." Then on Tuesday an Arizona state House committee approved a measure which would force President Obama to show his birth certificate if he runs for re-election. http://huff.to/9bfpzg)
What is right for Arizona is for Governor Brewer to jealously protect the rights of all its citizens and follow the U.S. Constitution, not turn Arizona into the Fourth Reich. Let's be frank, by passing SB 1070 lawmakers have sold out Arizona taxpayers in a cynical effort to garner votes and look tough. The bill does nothing to build a functional immigration system, secure the border nor rid the state of dangerous criminals. Nor does it protect the wages and working conditions of US workers. Instead, it targets day laborers and ordinary citizens whose appearance might raise "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful immigration status in the mind of a police officer. If Governor Brewer signs SB 1070, people in Arizona with foreign sounding accents or who don't "look American" had better not run into the wrong cop (or even the right cop) because the law mandates they prove they are here legally.
SB 1070 is not the product thoughtful policy making; it is hate speech masquerading as legislation. This sounds extreme until you read SB 1070 which is a hodgepodge of mean spirited provisions that will effectively transform Arizona into a police state for anyone whose skin is a shade other than white. The bill's effect may very well be to make Arizona "Latino Free" and force those who stay behind�U.S. citizens included�to feel like hunted criminals. Frankly, there is no other way to describe SB 1070 which would make not having immigration documents a state crime, allow law enforcement officers to arrest anyone who could not immediately prove they were in the U.S. legally, and subject a brown-skinned person who leaves home without a wallet to arrest. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles was hardly exaggerating when he compared SB 1070 to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation." http://bit.ly/9ZIQ9K.
SB 1070's outright decimation of civil liberties and American values aside, Governor Brewer's signature on the bill will likely reek economic devastation on Arizona, costing its taxpayers billions in lost revenue. The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) reported this week that "if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002, the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well." And this loss of revenue to the hard working taxpayers of Arizona does not take into account the cost of defending the inevitable lawsuits that will be brought against the state for civil rights and other violations. According to the IPC, "Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted" leading to millions of dollars in expenditures. http://bit.ly/dbguDK.
As I wrote previously on this blog, SB 1070 is not the problem. It is an awful symptom of the failure of the Administration and Congress to enact immigration reform. In the void, local and state authorities have run roughshod over the civil liberties we cherish as a nation. What we see today is a perfect storm of crises�ICE's neglect and abuse of immigrant detainees which has culminated in 107 deaths in immigration detention since 2003, the serious civil rights abuses in the notorious 287(g) program which is administered by ICE and "deputizes" state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law, and an immigration bureaucracy that thumbs its nose at the needs of American business and families. As a nation we must demand that Congress and the Administration put politics aside and get to the hard work of building a safe, orderly, fair, and functional immigration policy designed to protect civil liberties and serve the needs of all Americans.
As for today, Governor Brewer has a choice. She can succumb to hatred and fear by signing SB 1070 or allowing it to become law without her signature (it is hard to say which would be more cowardly). Or she can show uncommon political courage and veto the bill, thereby drawing a line in the Arizona desert over which racism, intolerance, and injustice dare not cross.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-3162775922361590244?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizona-governor-jan-brewers-choice.html)
All eyes are on Governor Jan Brewer today.
On her desk is SB 1070, an anti-immigrant bill which would effectively make all Latinos the target of arrest or interrogation, whether or not they are U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants, or undocumented foreign nationals. Indeed, such a hate-motivated bill may well compel all Latinos to pack up and leave the state. Brewer's choice is clear to anyone who cherishes freedom and democracy�veto SB 1070, and toss it into the dust bin of history where it belongs, together with Jim Crow, the Nazi Nuremberg laws, and South African Apartheid.
But, believe it or not, the Governor is actually considering signing this venomous bill into law. Last night, in yet another surreal Arizona moment Governor Brewer addressed the 41st annual Chicanos Por La Causa anniversary dinner amid calls in the audience for her to veto SB 1070 and surrounded by protesters that chanted and marched outside the Sheraton Phoenix Downtown Hotel where the dinner was held. At the dinner, organization board chairwoman Erica Gonzalez-Melendez urged Brewer to veto "the most hateful piece of legislation directed at Latinos" aptly pointing out that SB 1070 will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system and only "panders to the racist fear mongers of our state." But, Governor Brewer refused to say what she would do, invoking political-speak instead, "I am not prepared to announce a decision on Senate Bill 1070," she said. "What I decide will be based on what's right for Arizona." http://bit.ly/96KJlT. (Note to reader: there have been several surreal moments in Arizona this week. On Monday Senator John McCain, who once described himself as a "maverick" and champion of comprehensive immigration reform, told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that "the drivers of cars with illegals in it ... are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway." Then on Tuesday an Arizona state House committee approved a measure which would force President Obama to show his birth certificate if he runs for re-election. http://huff.to/9bfpzg)
What is right for Arizona is for Governor Brewer to jealously protect the rights of all its citizens and follow the U.S. Constitution, not turn Arizona into the Fourth Reich. Let's be frank, by passing SB 1070 lawmakers have sold out Arizona taxpayers in a cynical effort to garner votes and look tough. The bill does nothing to build a functional immigration system, secure the border nor rid the state of dangerous criminals. Nor does it protect the wages and working conditions of US workers. Instead, it targets day laborers and ordinary citizens whose appearance might raise "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful immigration status in the mind of a police officer. If Governor Brewer signs SB 1070, people in Arizona with foreign sounding accents or who don't "look American" had better not run into the wrong cop (or even the right cop) because the law mandates they prove they are here legally.
SB 1070 is not the product thoughtful policy making; it is hate speech masquerading as legislation. This sounds extreme until you read SB 1070 which is a hodgepodge of mean spirited provisions that will effectively transform Arizona into a police state for anyone whose skin is a shade other than white. The bill's effect may very well be to make Arizona "Latino Free" and force those who stay behind�U.S. citizens included�to feel like hunted criminals. Frankly, there is no other way to describe SB 1070 which would make not having immigration documents a state crime, allow law enforcement officers to arrest anyone who could not immediately prove they were in the U.S. legally, and subject a brown-skinned person who leaves home without a wallet to arrest. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles was hardly exaggerating when he compared SB 1070 to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation." http://bit.ly/9ZIQ9K.
SB 1070's outright decimation of civil liberties and American values aside, Governor Brewer's signature on the bill will likely reek economic devastation on Arizona, costing its taxpayers billions in lost revenue. The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) reported this week that "if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002, the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well." And this loss of revenue to the hard working taxpayers of Arizona does not take into account the cost of defending the inevitable lawsuits that will be brought against the state for civil rights and other violations. According to the IPC, "Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted" leading to millions of dollars in expenditures. http://bit.ly/dbguDK.
As I wrote previously on this blog, SB 1070 is not the problem. It is an awful symptom of the failure of the Administration and Congress to enact immigration reform. In the void, local and state authorities have run roughshod over the civil liberties we cherish as a nation. What we see today is a perfect storm of crises�ICE's neglect and abuse of immigrant detainees which has culminated in 107 deaths in immigration detention since 2003, the serious civil rights abuses in the notorious 287(g) program which is administered by ICE and "deputizes" state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law, and an immigration bureaucracy that thumbs its nose at the needs of American business and families. As a nation we must demand that Congress and the Administration put politics aside and get to the hard work of building a safe, orderly, fair, and functional immigration policy designed to protect civil liberties and serve the needs of all Americans.
As for today, Governor Brewer has a choice. She can succumb to hatred and fear by signing SB 1070 or allowing it to become law without her signature (it is hard to say which would be more cowardly). Or she can show uncommon political courage and veto the bill, thereby drawing a line in the Arizona desert over which racism, intolerance, and injustice dare not cross.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-3162775922361590244?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizona-governor-jan-brewers-choice.html)
hairstyles love quotes emo. i love you
h1techSlave
02-28 06:50 PM
Bump
did you intend to say Dumb? ;) ;)
did you intend to say Dumb? ;) ;)
averagedesi
09-22 09:33 AM
I am in the same boat, changed my mind to apply for AP in the last minute and mailed my application on Aug 16th, USPS messed it up and couldn't deliver it on Aug 17th, tried delivering it on 18th but didnt since offices were closed finally delivered it on 20th.
Now my AP application got rejected citing that I should have applied with new fee of $305 starting July 30th.
What is confusing is where does it says post marked by Aug 17th? I thought USCIS had to receive it by Aug 17th.
Now my AP application got rejected citing that I should have applied with new fee of $305 starting July 30th.
What is confusing is where does it says post marked by Aug 17th? I thought USCIS had to receive it by Aug 17th.
tabletpc
09-24 10:43 AM
But if we would be able to pass just recapture of Employment Based visas at this stage, Family based visas recapture can be taken up later on. This is just a thought. IV core group and members can discuss this idea for further action.
I am single but still I would say Family based visias should be given first preference over employmeent. They need it more than us. Think about the seperated family. GC is not stopping u from working right...?? But GC for familys separated is stopping them from living together.
I am single but still I would say Family based visias should be given first preference over employmeent. They need it more than us. Think about the seperated family. GC is not stopping u from working right...?? But GC for familys separated is stopping them from living together.
No comments:
Post a Comment