alterego
02-01 11:18 PM
Seems to me, whether we like it nor not, whether it is fair or not, whether it is sensible or not, whatever, whenever this issue has come up since 2005, despite efforts to separate them our issue is tied up with the fate of the issue of the illegals in legislators minds.
American legislators(collectively) don't seem willing or able to deal with these issues separately.
So, though from a philosophical perspective I remain neutral on the issue of legalization of the status of illegal immigrants, I feel our best interests are served with a pro CIR candidate, whatever the stated position about legal highly skilled immigration. They simply don't seem ready to move on that without CIR. Whatever the consequences for the economy and global competitiveness.
Overall a McCain vs either Obama/Clinton would be OK for us, since at the very least the temperature of the debates on the issue of immigration will be less and the tone of the debate more rational and reasoned. Also that match up would make it less likely for a 3rd candidate. Romney would have fanned the flames of the anti immigrants. I write in the past tense because the or"MITT"uaries on that campaign are already being written for publication after Feb 5th.
Agree with logiclife that election of pro immigrant senators would help. That seems to me, to mean democratic gains except blue dog democrats, since that would help them push legislation through. All in all we want immigration to remain in the discussion, but the conversation to be less emotive and more reasoned and rational and civil.
American legislators(collectively) don't seem willing or able to deal with these issues separately.
So, though from a philosophical perspective I remain neutral on the issue of legalization of the status of illegal immigrants, I feel our best interests are served with a pro CIR candidate, whatever the stated position about legal highly skilled immigration. They simply don't seem ready to move on that without CIR. Whatever the consequences for the economy and global competitiveness.
Overall a McCain vs either Obama/Clinton would be OK for us, since at the very least the temperature of the debates on the issue of immigration will be less and the tone of the debate more rational and reasoned. Also that match up would make it less likely for a 3rd candidate. Romney would have fanned the flames of the anti immigrants. I write in the past tense because the or"MITT"uaries on that campaign are already being written for publication after Feb 5th.
Agree with logiclife that election of pro immigrant senators would help. That seems to me, to mean democratic gains except blue dog democrats, since that would help them push legislation through. All in all we want immigration to remain in the discussion, but the conversation to be less emotive and more reasoned and rational and civil.
wallpaper Amor frases para facebook
pappu
05-11 01:28 PM
some german lady speaking about getting citizenship.
Eberth
10-21 06:08 PM
hehehe, btw, could anyone draw a dogs bed for me, hehehe,
2011 Imagenes de amor para facebook
Lasantha
10-05 09:32 AM
Yes, I noticed that and thought the same. I am submitting my application today. I have been trying it for the last 7 years with no luck. Who knows, this one could be the one when I hit the jackpot ! :cool:
more...
tnite
06-18 11:59 AM
Hi Guys:
Had some questions with regards to my actual 485 form.
situation:
2000-2003 -F1 (never out of status/ visa stamped in 2000 in bombay)
2003-2004 - OPT
2004-2007 - 1st H1 (never got it stamped)
2007-2010 - 2nd H1 (stamped last month in canada)
PART 3
Place of Last Entry Into the United States (City/State)
What should i put over here? I did not get an arrival stamp when i came back from canada last month after stamping. all the immigration officer did was tear the bottom portion of the h1b approval and staple it to the passport. he said that was my I-94
Consult a lawyer.
I personally think putting your canadian vist as the last place of entry might not show up in records as no stamping took place and also the I94 part which is taken by the customs and sent to INS in kentucky did not happen in your case. So when USCIS checks u'r I94, all they will see is the date in 2000 when you came to US.
In your case since you jumped from F1 to H1B via OPT you might not have had any gaps in chaging status and USCIS did not ask you to leave the country for gettting the H1B stamped(Change of status was approved )
This situation of yours hinges on technicality and better talk to a lawyer.
Had some questions with regards to my actual 485 form.
situation:
2000-2003 -F1 (never out of status/ visa stamped in 2000 in bombay)
2003-2004 - OPT
2004-2007 - 1st H1 (never got it stamped)
2007-2010 - 2nd H1 (stamped last month in canada)
PART 3
Place of Last Entry Into the United States (City/State)
What should i put over here? I did not get an arrival stamp when i came back from canada last month after stamping. all the immigration officer did was tear the bottom portion of the h1b approval and staple it to the passport. he said that was my I-94
Consult a lawyer.
I personally think putting your canadian vist as the last place of entry might not show up in records as no stamping took place and also the I94 part which is taken by the customs and sent to INS in kentucky did not happen in your case. So when USCIS checks u'r I94, all they will see is the date in 2000 when you came to US.
In your case since you jumped from F1 to H1B via OPT you might not have had any gaps in chaging status and USCIS did not ask you to leave the country for gettting the H1B stamped(Change of status was approved )
This situation of yours hinges on technicality and better talk to a lawyer.
Winner
04-21 03:39 PM
Thanks.
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.
Now that is news to me. Can any attorneys confirm this?
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.
Now that is news to me. Can any attorneys confirm this?
more...
aka
04-23 11:52 AM
I have a filing date of July 2nd 2007. My RD? A fantastic Oct 21 2007. That's 3 and a half months, more than a quarter year away.
I filed at NSC, my case ended up in TSC.
Nothing much makes sense, nowadays. :confused:
I have a RD of JUNE 4, 2007 and a PD of 07/03 and still no approval yet (NSC). So not sure how they come up with these processing dates. You are right... nothing makes much sense nowadays!!
I filed at NSC, my case ended up in TSC.
Nothing much makes sense, nowadays. :confused:
I have a RD of JUNE 4, 2007 and a PD of 07/03 and still no approval yet (NSC). So not sure how they come up with these processing dates. You are right... nothing makes much sense nowadays!!
2010 para mi amor ke la kero muxo
coolmanasip
07-19 10:35 AM
tnite.... thanks for the detailed reply........I forwarded this exchange to him........should make him happy and relaxed!!!
Thanks much!
Thanks much!
more...
HRPRO
02-22 04:46 PM
Jagan,
i am really soory about your predicament. I agree with you, the guys working at the embassy here need a lot of help. Hope you get your issues resolved soon.
HRPRO
i am really soory about your predicament. I agree with you, the guys working at the embassy here need a lot of help. Hope you get your issues resolved soon.
HRPRO
hair de amor. imagenes
RNGC
04-08 09:38 PM
As per INA 202, many of you know that for employment based immigration, the limit is 7% of 140k per country, if there are unused visas from family based or from previous years, USCIS should try to use them, which is not happenning....
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
more...
jcrajput
06-18 03:43 PM
What is the best way to send the documents to the emabassy? I asked because I live in Ahmedabad and I am planning to go for stamping the very next day I arrive in India.
Thanks for your help.
jignesh
Thanks for your help.
jignesh
hot PARA MI AMOR
rvr_jcop
02-17 11:33 AM
Ok ..
Now I dont want to change my employer .
But my employer doent pay when I am on bench . So I may not having paystubs after March .
Will it cause any problem to H1 extention ?
Ofcourse, if H1-extension requires the last couple of pay checks, there is a possibility they would ask for the 'latest', as opposed to March pay stubs, if you apply for extension say in August. Again, if you apply for extension in April with March paystubs (within 6 months of expiry), then there is a less possibility. But you cant rule that out if they ask for latest stubs in the potential RFE in the future. So its up to you.
Now I dont want to change my employer .
But my employer doent pay when I am on bench . So I may not having paystubs after March .
Will it cause any problem to H1 extention ?
Ofcourse, if H1-extension requires the last couple of pay checks, there is a possibility they would ask for the 'latest', as opposed to March pay stubs, if you apply for extension say in August. Again, if you apply for extension in April with March paystubs (within 6 months of expiry), then there is a less possibility. But you cant rule that out if they ask for latest stubs in the potential RFE in the future. So its up to you.
more...
house de amor para facebook.
dealsnet
08-05 11:17 AM
I did spend EAD renewal for me and wife. Within 1 week our GC is approved. I think because of this application, they took my file out and approved. So I didn't regret the amount spend for this. I have received EAD denial letter after 3 weeks. So this is our last amount for USCIS. Many people with older priority date still in their shelf. Think about it and be happy.
I've applied for EAD/AP renewal for both myself and my wife. I spent $1,290 for this.
Say I got my GC approved and then I call USCIS and withdraw my pending EAD/AP application. Will I get a refund for pending EAD/AP application, if I get my GC approved before EAD/AP approval?
Thanks,
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
I've applied for EAD/AP renewal for both myself and my wife. I spent $1,290 for this.
Say I got my GC approved and then I call USCIS and withdraw my pending EAD/AP application. Will I get a refund for pending EAD/AP application, if I get my GC approved before EAD/AP approval?
Thanks,
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
tattoo De Amor Para El Facebook
diesel
03-01 09:29 AM
Now they are saying 17 months (until 9/30/2007)
Is a year 10 months? What kind of math is this? :confused:
Is a year 10 months? What kind of math is this? :confused:
more...
pictures imagenes de amor para facebook
mheggade
01-08 08:36 AM
I hear SAP Functional jobs are very short term though you make good money. Some companies want you to be ready for 100% travel.
dresses Imagenes de Amor, Amistad y
nixstor
06-30 06:35 PM
Any thing related to EB immigration, whether it be H1B cap/VB/Retrogression, it has been spreading like wild fire and traveling faster than the speed of wire. On one occasion, I felt that we and lawyers are probably giving more input to the USCIS. Some rumor/educated guess kicks off some where and it ends up in the lap of USCIS. Like H1B cap. People predicted and predicted non stop for 2 months that it will be over on day one. Its not a prediction. It was a forced situation to some extent. This whole VB revision is similar, if it happens
more...
makeup de amor para facebook.
quizzer
07-30 07:36 PM
The attorney informed us that both our EAD's were received today.
The point here is the original ead expiry date was 10/15/2008. The new EAD expiry is 07/15/2010 and not 10/14/2010.
Its validity is not 2 years from the original expiry but 2 years from the current approval date.
Are others getting it the same way?
Thanks
The point here is the original ead expiry date was 10/15/2008. The new EAD expiry is 07/15/2010 and not 10/14/2010.
Its validity is not 2 years from the original expiry but 2 years from the current approval date.
Are others getting it the same way?
Thanks
girlfriend de amor para facebook.
Appu
04-08 04:23 PM
Zogby, Time, CNN, ABC news, CBS news to do a poll this way:
Who do you think is right on immigration - the house or the senate?
I bet a majority will say "the senate". That should give the House anti-immigration group some pause.
Right now the house majority is doing very badly in popular polls. With a poll like this, they will learn the wrongness of their ways! Like the senate did in the Schiavo case.
If you do find a poll like this, popularize it by sending it to local news outlets.
Who do you think is right on immigration - the house or the senate?
I bet a majority will say "the senate". That should give the House anti-immigration group some pause.
Right now the house majority is doing very badly in popular polls. With a poll like this, they will learn the wrongness of their ways! Like the senate did in the Schiavo case.
If you do find a poll like this, popularize it by sending it to local news outlets.
hairstyles de amor para facebook. fotos
vin13
08-24 11:40 AM
I had 485 interview a month back (previously at the national benefits center) at the local USCIS office. The interview went fine except that they gave me an RFE asking for additional documents verifying employment. Since then I submited documents to the local office a 3 weeks back. Today my supervisor got a call from USCIS Anti Fraud Detection (homeland security) and they left a voice mail that they need to verify my immigration status.
Is this normal? Is there something i need to worry about?
My record is pretty straighforward. I am with the same employer since 2002 first on H1b and then EAD on a permanent postion and no gap in employment and never out of status
My supervisor called back but went to voicemail and left a general message
I have been hearing of more verifications of this kind. But if your records are straightforward, you should not worry. Make sure your immigration attorney is in the loop.
Just wondering what could have triggered this inquiry. Could you give some insight to whether you are working for a small company, consulting, etc that you believe could be a possible reason. Maybe it is just a random pick...
Is this normal? Is there something i need to worry about?
My record is pretty straighforward. I am with the same employer since 2002 first on H1b and then EAD on a permanent postion and no gap in employment and never out of status
My supervisor called back but went to voicemail and left a general message
I have been hearing of more verifications of this kind. But if your records are straightforward, you should not worry. Make sure your immigration attorney is in the loop.
Just wondering what could have triggered this inquiry. Could you give some insight to whether you are working for a small company, consulting, etc that you believe could be a possible reason. Maybe it is just a random pick...
jayram123
07-18 07:34 AM
DIGG THIS PLEASE:
http://digg.com/politics/Government_Does_U_Turn_on_Green_Cards
Dugg!:)
http://digg.com/politics/Government_Does_U_Turn_on_Green_Cards
Dugg!:)
ilikekilo
09-18 06:02 PM
hey thanks for your response, i appreciate it
where di u file? and did u efile?
where di u file? and did u efile?
No comments:
Post a Comment