simplistik
03-08 02:00 PM
yeah i thought it was gonna be between him, paddy, and me
LoL... I always assumed it was gonna be between you, him, paddy, and fern... I dunno that's just me. LoL :lol: :party:
LoL... I always assumed it was gonna be between you, him, paddy, and fern... I dunno that's just me. LoL :lol: :party:
485Mbe4001
08-14 12:46 PM
I dont think that is the case, i am a direct employee and i have experienced tremendous delays, infact every application from my company (which is a large multinational) has been delayed, so i am guessing its more to do with the lawyers(large, high cost firm) or just good old luck. Infact all of my friends/batch mates who were consultants have their green cards and some have their citizenships too. My theory was that if a company is sponsoring(paying all the money) you are relaxed and initially dont worry about the delays, if its coming out of your pocket you doublecheck everything and are proactive...just a thought
This is just my theory. When you don't have much information, you get to think of many theories and here is mine. I believe USCIS is approving direct employees of an organization. For example, they may be giving preference to Microsoft employee, rather than an employee of Patel and Patel INC. I know I may be wrong, but I am just pondering. How can someone explain a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 08/01/2007 has much preference over a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 07/20/2007? Am I missing something here? :confused::confused:
People may post their answers, proving that I am wrong.
This is just my theory. When you don't have much information, you get to think of many theories and here is mine. I believe USCIS is approving direct employees of an organization. For example, they may be giving preference to Microsoft employee, rather than an employee of Patel and Patel INC. I know I may be wrong, but I am just pondering. How can someone explain a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 08/01/2007 has much preference over a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 07/20/2007? Am I missing something here? :confused::confused:
People may post their answers, proving that I am wrong.
zofa30
09-14 05:04 PM
Thanks a_yaja and thanks for all who helped me in this issue,
Yes I am on EB2+PERM. Thanks for the explanation. I now understand the situation.
I have a couple of questions that will help me to figure out what to do:
1-When legally I can start applying for new EB2+PERM with the new employer? Can I start right away from day one or I should work for the new employer for a certain period?
2-What is the best way to have a safe H1B transfer? In other words should I ask my new employer to transfer H1B then resign from the current job once I received the new H1B or how it should be? Please advice.
Thanks.
Yes I am on EB2+PERM. Thanks for the explanation. I now understand the situation.
I have a couple of questions that will help me to figure out what to do:
1-When legally I can start applying for new EB2+PERM with the new employer? Can I start right away from day one or I should work for the new employer for a certain period?
2-What is the best way to have a safe H1B transfer? In other words should I ask my new employer to transfer H1B then resign from the current job once I received the new H1B or how it should be? Please advice.
Thanks.
anilsal
09-17 12:36 PM
2 times I returned back from Intl trips, the officer kept 1 original. I am left with 1 original. I have one intl trip to make before my renewed AP arrives.
From the discussion, I think the officer will stamp the last original, make a copy and give the original back.
From the discussion, I think the officer will stamp the last original, make a copy and give the original back.
more...
Templarian
08-27 01:47 PM
I leave it up to one of you guys to make a non-animated :smh: smilie.
http://kirupa.templarian.com/smh.gif
http://kirupa.templarian.com/smh.gif
vactorboy29
07-17 07:04 PM
I think we need to send flowers with thank you note to IV core members and congress woman.Let us get vote and send flowers to those addresses.
Thank you
Thank you
more...
Suva
03-03 01:53 PM
Thanks...
adjusted Gross Income:)
adjusted Gross Income:)
VMH_GC
07-17 04:02 PM
Let us start sending Thank you flowers to IV core memebers such as Logic life, pappu ( i know only these two people) Please add to the list if you know anybody belong to Core team.
more...
gultie2k
07-07 11:37 AM
Kalyan, sorry to hear your case.
What reasons were you given for the denial of your case?
What reasons were you given for the denial of your case?
lostinbeta
10-16 01:00 PM
It is a default shape in Photoshop 7. You can view my attachment to see what it looks like.
They might have it in Photoshop 6, not sure.
They might have it in Photoshop 6, not sure.
more...
kedrex
01-13 10:59 AM
Thanks a lot for the replies.
I have an infopass appointment for tomorrow. Are the infopass officers qualified to review the file and process it right away?
I have an infopass appointment for tomorrow. Are the infopass officers qualified to review the file and process it right away?
peer123
04-16 09:56 PM
bumping...
more...
Almond
01-27 12:54 AM
Ah, thank you for posting this, I have been checking that link desperately forever and it hadn't changed. Question to those who know better, if my Notice Date is May 15, and the "processing time frame" for I-485's is July 19, what does that mean for me? Am I stuck in some kind of check or something? Thanks in advance.
GCNirvana007
06-07 04:32 PM
Since i applied my I-485, havent seen a LUD but i did first time June 3rd 2009. One of my friend with same PD got LUD in April. I am from TSC. Any thoughts?.
more...
chanduv23
04-21 04:27 PM
Well, if your H1B is based on approved 140 (post 6 years), even that gets invalidated when your 485 is denied due to revocation of I-140.
According to my lawyer, you can very well work on EAD if your 485 is denied because of USCIS's wrongful decision like not looking at AC21 law, July fiasco PD confusion etc ..if you want to be extra conservative here, u can wait till your MTR is filed and you get a receipt notice to start working again.
Thats a "positive view" by an attorney. Some Attorneys use the conservative approach. As such, it is an ambigious call.
Adjustment of Status means "you are in the US" and adjusting status. Now when a decision comes from USCIS - it may be "right" or "wrong". In 99% of cases, the decisions are right. 1 % cases where employer revoked 140 or July fiasco confusion or other stuff can be attributed to "wrong" decisions. Thats why a denial letter states that one has to apply for MTR if their decision was not right and asks for "new facts" that they missed. Ability to file for MTR means, you are showing USCIS that you are indeed eligible to adjust status. All this is within the law.
But the irony is - when one's 485 gets denied and MTR is in progress, one cannnot renew EAD or AP because the 485 has been flagged as "denied".
Now, if one files for MTR and leaves the country - it means this person has given up and the MTR will not get processed any further and 485 decision is final - and if the decision was wrongful - it means the person as actually obliged to a wrongful denial.
So what is the status when one files MTR? It is not defined.
Thats exactly why I said " An Attorney will be able to explain"
My personal suggestion - "Don't stress". If your 485 gets wrongfully denied, MTRs take usually few weeks to 3 months or so.
According to my lawyer, you can very well work on EAD if your 485 is denied because of USCIS's wrongful decision like not looking at AC21 law, July fiasco PD confusion etc ..if you want to be extra conservative here, u can wait till your MTR is filed and you get a receipt notice to start working again.
Thats a "positive view" by an attorney. Some Attorneys use the conservative approach. As such, it is an ambigious call.
Adjustment of Status means "you are in the US" and adjusting status. Now when a decision comes from USCIS - it may be "right" or "wrong". In 99% of cases, the decisions are right. 1 % cases where employer revoked 140 or July fiasco confusion or other stuff can be attributed to "wrong" decisions. Thats why a denial letter states that one has to apply for MTR if their decision was not right and asks for "new facts" that they missed. Ability to file for MTR means, you are showing USCIS that you are indeed eligible to adjust status. All this is within the law.
But the irony is - when one's 485 gets denied and MTR is in progress, one cannnot renew EAD or AP because the 485 has been flagged as "denied".
Now, if one files for MTR and leaves the country - it means this person has given up and the MTR will not get processed any further and 485 decision is final - and if the decision was wrongful - it means the person as actually obliged to a wrongful denial.
So what is the status when one files MTR? It is not defined.
Thats exactly why I said " An Attorney will be able to explain"
My personal suggestion - "Don't stress". If your 485 gets wrongfully denied, MTRs take usually few weeks to 3 months or so.
hianupam
04-16 01:49 PM
wht field u and ur wife work on??
Both of us work in the energy (electricity) industry.
Both of us work in the energy (electricity) industry.
more...
sobers
02-09 08:58 AM
Discussion about challenges in America�s immigration policies tends to focus on the millions of illegal immigrants. But the more pressing immigration problem facing the US today, writes Intel chairman Craig Barrett, is the dearth of high-skilled immigrants required to keep the US economy competitive. Due to tighter visa policies and a growth in opportunities elsewhere in the world, foreign students majoring in science and engineering at US universities are no longer staying to work after graduation in the large numbers that they once did. With the poor quality of science and math education at the primary and secondary levels in the US, the country cannot afford to lose any highly-skilled immigrants, particularly in key, technology-related disciplines. Along with across-the-board improvements in education, the US needs to find a way to attract enough new workers so that companies like Intel do not have to set up shop elsewhere.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
shanti
02-25 10:01 AM
Thank you Akred
So to put this clear... I have experience abroad matching the labor job profile of 4 years. Then I have experience in U.S. with employer A (no labor related only an H-1B) for 3 years. Then I worked one year with employer B and after that -in Feb 2005- Employer B applied for Labor. So my relevant experience that I could use to say the job is same or similar is my 4 ys abroad with similar job description plus the 3 years in US with company A so total 7 years.
When I joined company B (the labor sponsoring company) I already had 7 ys experience in other employer than B, so for same or similar I could use up to 7 ys experience requirement as long as the job description and title are almost the same (which they are)?.
I know this is an interesting question which many people probably have. I posted the question for the Conference call so that people which will be or are in the same situation could know for sure how to handle this isssue.
So to put this clear... I have experience abroad matching the labor job profile of 4 years. Then I have experience in U.S. with employer A (no labor related only an H-1B) for 3 years. Then I worked one year with employer B and after that -in Feb 2005- Employer B applied for Labor. So my relevant experience that I could use to say the job is same or similar is my 4 ys abroad with similar job description plus the 3 years in US with company A so total 7 years.
When I joined company B (the labor sponsoring company) I already had 7 ys experience in other employer than B, so for same or similar I could use up to 7 ys experience requirement as long as the job description and title are almost the same (which they are)?.
I know this is an interesting question which many people probably have. I posted the question for the Conference call so that people which will be or are in the same situation could know for sure how to handle this isssue.
sp99
08-18 02:38 PM
And for contract yes they have 1 year contract though they didn't send me any documentation for that ...but it is like if u break within 1 year u will need to pay $20 for the remaining months..they say they will cut from my credit card everymonth...
VenuK
07-15 08:09 PM
any advices pls....
ryan
01-26 03:18 PM
Hi Friends, I searched through some of the prior posts and did not find the answer. I am not looking for cities to live in from the point of view of job, taxes, weather, desi population, desi amenties such as movies, restaurants etc...
Please, don't take this wrong way. I assume you moved to the US to seek the positives this land has to offer your children, whilst holding on to certain cultures / values from your hometown. Hence, I don't understand why you would relocate to the other side of the planet and seek the best place for "Indian" children to live?! I would reckon, it is probably your hometown, in India.
Very few get to have the cake and eat it too.
I have lived in 4 states, in the 8 years I have lived in this country. I have NEVER faced racism or discrimination of any sort. No place is perfect. However, this country does stand head and shoulders above a lot of places. Try and fit in.
Please, don't take this wrong way. I assume you moved to the US to seek the positives this land has to offer your children, whilst holding on to certain cultures / values from your hometown. Hence, I don't understand why you would relocate to the other side of the planet and seek the best place for "Indian" children to live?! I would reckon, it is probably your hometown, in India.
Very few get to have the cake and eat it too.
I have lived in 4 states, in the 8 years I have lived in this country. I have NEVER faced racism or discrimination of any sort. No place is perfect. However, this country does stand head and shoulders above a lot of places. Try and fit in.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét