chanduv23
09-10 06:51 AM
If people think reversal of bulletin has solved their issues, it is far from truth. From what I understand and based on experience, Ron Hira and his likes will now work on a non reversible damage.
If the immigrant community is still ignorant - God save the community.
If we do not have enough numbers show up at the rally - Ron Hira, Lou Dobbs, Roy Beck and John Miano will start architecting something that is irreversible
If the immigrant community is still ignorant - God save the community.
If we do not have enough numbers show up at the rally - Ron Hira, Lou Dobbs, Roy Beck and John Miano will start architecting something that is irreversible
Hopeful123
05-19 06:45 PM
Has anybody in this group(i.e. whose I-140 was transferred to TSC from NSC recently) seen any movements in their case? I am in the same boat, I-140 filed May'07 at NSC and moved to TSC in Apr'08. I saw one more related thread but haven't seen any approvals recently.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18566
Please do update if you have any recent updates. Thank you
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18566
Please do update if you have any recent updates. Thank you
fromnaija
01-04 09:05 AM
I dont know if this is possible but how about applying for EB3 using premium processing and once it is approved u have ur prority date set to Apr 2004 and then apply for EB2 I140 and ask for the April 2004 priority date.
I am not sure if u can do this, looking forward from others to see if this is possible.
It is possible as mnkaushik suggested. And your employers don't have to revoke the EB3 140 in order to file the EB2 140. You will need to file EB3 first and after it is approved, file EB2 and port the EB3 PD to the new application.
I am not sure if u can do this, looking forward from others to see if this is possible.
It is possible as mnkaushik suggested. And your employers don't have to revoke the EB3 140 in order to file the EB2 140. You will need to file EB3 first and after it is approved, file EB2 and port the EB3 PD to the new application.
anilsal
10-05 04:55 PM
IV Core.
Another visual proof of your dedication to the cause.
Please continue the great work.
Another visual proof of your dedication to the cause.
Please continue the great work.
more...
Tshelar
08-24 08:57 AM
As far as I know INS cannot look into somebody's tax records without the individual's consent. I am not sure this is even a genuine post.
And of course IRS is happy take your taxes, they don't care about the immigration status.
And of course IRS is happy take your taxes, they don't care about the immigration status.
nepaliboy
05-17 04:41 PM
Practically not much.
If FP is for EAD, one is likely to get EAD soon with fingerprints.
If FP is for GC, it usually gets OK in 2-10 days and then there will be a soft LUD. GC application remains in pending state for Priority Date, Processing Date and Name Check (now there is NC override of six months).
FP is not a bottleneck, except for few cases - they have not received FP notices for the past 8-10 months.
It is expected that Priority Date and Processing Date will be cause of delays
so my pd is current now september 2005 row , my rd is july 2nd 2007 , i had not receive fingerprint notice yet but last week i took infopass and io shedule for 28 th may 2008 ,
after may 28 2008 , after taking fingerprint for my i 485 what do you think they will process my case straight forward ?
If FP is for EAD, one is likely to get EAD soon with fingerprints.
If FP is for GC, it usually gets OK in 2-10 days and then there will be a soft LUD. GC application remains in pending state for Priority Date, Processing Date and Name Check (now there is NC override of six months).
FP is not a bottleneck, except for few cases - they have not received FP notices for the past 8-10 months.
It is expected that Priority Date and Processing Date will be cause of delays
so my pd is current now september 2005 row , my rd is july 2nd 2007 , i had not receive fingerprint notice yet but last week i took infopass and io shedule for 28 th may 2008 ,
after may 28 2008 , after taking fingerprint for my i 485 what do you think they will process my case straight forward ?
more...
ssa
08-03 01:40 PM
Done :)
rajev_kk
06-19 09:14 PM
Hello,
Is the Nebraska Service Center fast or is there any other center that is fast. I am filing 140 and 485 together so kindly advice. Also, I would be getting married in 5 months in India and my Wife would come with me after that. Can I include her after she comes here? Is there anything that I would be aware off. Please advice. Thanks!
Is the Nebraska Service Center fast or is there any other center that is fast. I am filing 140 and 485 together so kindly advice. Also, I would be getting married in 5 months in India and my Wife would come with me after that. Can I include her after she comes here? Is there anything that I would be aware off. Please advice. Thanks!
more...
cinqsit
11-24 06:07 PM
I have seen people get a copy of their approved I-140 using FOIA Freedom of Information Act Request, where the employer was giving them a hard time and not sharing their I-140 info. So there are ways you can get a copy of the approved I-140 provided of course everything is in order. (previous poster has also posted information of getting duplicate I-140)
This is kind of similar - you should contact a good lawyer and try and get that I-140 copy
if you current lawyer is unhelpful just get advice and help from some other immigration lawyer - you are in the home stretch dont give up - try and provide USCIS whatever they want. (though technically they should have information about the approved I-140 - so I dont get why they are requesting a original copy from you!)
Also you mention
"In late 2008, with the help of a congressman, my new attorney was able to figure out that USCIS has lost my original I-140 application (filed at Nebraska center) and USCIS has issued the same I-140 receipt no. to somebody else. Then USCIS auto-created a new I-140 and gave me SRC receipt no. with filing date as Jan 2008 and as electronically filed by my previous attorney."
Do you have any documentation abou this ? a letter from Congressman etc? This is really weird never heard anything like this before.
You should collect all such documents (contact the congressman again if need be to get a letter or something in writing) then contact
a good immigration lawyer.
Good luck!
This is kind of similar - you should contact a good lawyer and try and get that I-140 copy
if you current lawyer is unhelpful just get advice and help from some other immigration lawyer - you are in the home stretch dont give up - try and provide USCIS whatever they want. (though technically they should have information about the approved I-140 - so I dont get why they are requesting a original copy from you!)
Also you mention
"In late 2008, with the help of a congressman, my new attorney was able to figure out that USCIS has lost my original I-140 application (filed at Nebraska center) and USCIS has issued the same I-140 receipt no. to somebody else. Then USCIS auto-created a new I-140 and gave me SRC receipt no. with filing date as Jan 2008 and as electronically filed by my previous attorney."
Do you have any documentation abou this ? a letter from Congressman etc? This is really weird never heard anything like this before.
You should collect all such documents (contact the congressman again if need be to get a letter or something in writing) then contact
a good immigration lawyer.
Good luck!
gcseeker2002
04-09 05:35 PM
Good luck, atleast you are in EB2
more...
Neo_Clone01
10-02 02:57 PM
love your posted imgae
excellent work!
an don worry im workin on some bg and hero stuff for the game as well
excellent work!
an don worry im workin on some bg and hero stuff for the game as well
rkp27
07-11 01:03 PM
Your case is just like many others here. Does that worth you own thread?
Spend some time to read thru some posts. You will know there are many people who are with 2002 PD have not been approved yet. If there's a definitely answer for your question, why will they be frustrate.
My friend,
I dont know what tends to write the answer you replied.. but i am not here to find out why anybody frustrate or what any anybody is doing etc.. Its not my business as well..
I ask question because it just came in my mind.. i dont bothers about others at all..
God bless everyone..
Spend some time to read thru some posts. You will know there are many people who are with 2002 PD have not been approved yet. If there's a definitely answer for your question, why will they be frustrate.
My friend,
I dont know what tends to write the answer you replied.. but i am not here to find out why anybody frustrate or what any anybody is doing etc.. Its not my business as well..
I ask question because it just came in my mind.. i dont bothers about others at all..
God bless everyone..
more...
prioritydate
07-14 10:46 AM
To elaborate on that, S.Korea happens to be on the forefront of technological innovations. Highest per capita broadband use, highest per capita cellphone use...land of samsung and Hyundai
not to mention great food...korean bbq anyone
Why there is no retrogression for this country? Sounds like something fishy going on...
Only in America. Injustice!!
not to mention great food...korean bbq anyone
Why there is no retrogression for this country? Sounds like something fishy going on...
Only in America. Injustice!!
prabhu07
05-21 11:44 AM
@gcformeornot - Thanks for the reply. Its my current employer who has applied for H1 as my L1 is maxing out, so, I am not in a total rush to change employers.
@surabhi - Thanks for the detailed reply, much appreciated. Your answer to my #2 question just made my day. I just wanted confirmation that I can still use my old priority date. I have no problems starting with a new labor, new I-140, as long as I can retain my old Priority date. Will you get real mad if I ask "can you re-confirm your answer" ? :D Nonetheless, Thanks a bunch again. :)
@surabhi - Thanks for the detailed reply, much appreciated. Your answer to my #2 question just made my day. I just wanted confirmation that I can still use my old priority date. I have no problems starting with a new labor, new I-140, as long as I can retain my old Priority date. Will you get real mad if I ask "can you re-confirm your answer" ? :D Nonetheless, Thanks a bunch again. :)
more...
mytv
08-14 11:12 PM
i was on h4 visa and recently as i turned 21 i am no more dependent on my dad who is on h1 visa . i tranfered my status to f1 .But my dad applied his 1-485 recently along with my application for i-485 and he consult the lawyer too and lawyer told as i am not the main visa holder like if i was on h1 and i transferred to f1 and then apply for i-485 then my application can get rejected ; but not now as i was not the main applicant but was dependent of my father.
i dont trust everything wat lawyers say.so can anybody help me out with this issue.
i dont trust everything wat lawyers say.so can anybody help me out with this issue.
saketkapur
09-22 07:17 PM
gave you a green...hopefully you will have a card after that soon too...:D
more...
number30
06-29 03:45 PM
Has anybody recently applied for a Schengen Visa, if yes, can you please let me know what you did for the travel insurance. The insurance from my employer (Humana) says they cover international but do not have a letter that states the same and Swedish consulate website says the letter should specifically say "International Coverage".
What are my options. Can you guys suggest where I can buy the insurance from.
Talk to some senior guy in Humana. They have three templates. One of them has International Coverage in it. I had this problem in 2005. I was able to get the letter after talking his supervisor.
What are my options. Can you guys suggest where I can buy the insurance from.
Talk to some senior guy in Humana. They have three templates. One of them has International Coverage in it. I had this problem in 2005. I was able to get the letter after talking his supervisor.
avi101
07-11 11:29 AM
Well said, logiclife. But from what I know, such employers just open up another company, not in their name, but their spouse or sibling or such and operate behind the scenes until its safe to come out. Other strategies they employ, send payment checks to employees old address on file knowing for sure that its gonna come back thereby delaying the process more.
The other side to the coin is that many times benching is an unholy marriage of convenience between the employer and employee. Employee does not want to go back and does not want H1 revoked and stickes a deal with employer. So its not always the employer at fault.
The other side to the coin is that many times benching is an unholy marriage of convenience between the employer and employee. Employee does not want to go back and does not want H1 revoked and stickes a deal with employer. So its not always the employer at fault.
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
ttdam
11-01 06:30 PM
I did it in Kinkos, I took all data pages in color and empty pages in black and white. It cost me around $15. (For two people). I also included all I 94 Cards.
Thanks eadguru
I did it in STAPLES almost the same,
Will keep posted with new updates...
Thanks eadguru
I did it in STAPLES almost the same,
Will keep posted with new updates...
tdasara
03-08 09:14 PM
The OVERFLOW from EB1 and EB2 is directly going to EB3!
No comments:
Post a Comment