vinzak
04-13 06:53 PM
i remember someone posting right here in IV that they got their GC when PD was not current. USCIS later asked for the GC back cuz it was given in error.:) To make things worse the poor guy obviously didnt renew his EAD and couldnt work.
So even if you get GC out of turn, I believe the correct thing to do is to return it. Or it can be more problems.
Here's the link on that topic:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum105-immigrant-visa/659959-gc-received-in-error.html
So even if you get GC out of turn, I believe the correct thing to do is to return it. Or it can be more problems.
Here's the link on that topic:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum105-immigrant-visa/659959-gc-received-in-error.html
Suva
01-26 01:22 PM
You are absolutely right. I have also completely lost the hope about it.
Yeah....in 2011 again it will be viewed too late for CIR, because in 2012 they have to face presidential election and incumbent president would be preparing for 2nd term. And again there will be a promise for CIR and 2013 will be a fresh year, 2014 will be a mid-term election year, 2015 will be too late for the term as they have to face presidential elections in 2016. Cycle repeats...after 5 cycles (i.e. 20 years) we all will get GC or kicked out of queue by issuing rfe/memo or totally frustrated and gone back to our home country or we might be still waiting in line for CIR to rescue us.
Along with election cycle there will be economic cycles. When cycle-of-politics favors the CIR, cycle-of-economy unfavors CIR and vice versa. Instead of reading pages and pages of news and blogs simply read it as 'CIR will never happen'.
Yeah....in 2011 again it will be viewed too late for CIR, because in 2012 they have to face presidential election and incumbent president would be preparing for 2nd term. And again there will be a promise for CIR and 2013 will be a fresh year, 2014 will be a mid-term election year, 2015 will be too late for the term as they have to face presidential elections in 2016. Cycle repeats...after 5 cycles (i.e. 20 years) we all will get GC or kicked out of queue by issuing rfe/memo or totally frustrated and gone back to our home country or we might be still waiting in line for CIR to rescue us.
Along with election cycle there will be economic cycles. When cycle-of-politics favors the CIR, cycle-of-economy unfavors CIR and vice versa. Instead of reading pages and pages of news and blogs simply read it as 'CIR will never happen'.
indyanguy
12-19 06:13 PM
Husband + Wife - 1 Application
Wife - Seperate Appln. ( Will do follow to join incase by chance the first one gets stuck
Can you explain how "follow to join" works? Thanks
Wife - Seperate Appln. ( Will do follow to join incase by chance the first one gets stuck
Can you explain how "follow to join" works? Thanks
newyorker123
09-02 08:03 AM
lj_rr,
you dont need any special form to make FOIA request to DOL.
"The Department of Labor does not require a special form in order to make a FOIA request. Requests must be in writing, either handwritten or typed. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, mail, or to foiarequest@dol.gov. Although, as discussed immediately below, certain information may be required from a requester. "
U.S. Department of Labor -- Freedom of Information Act Guide (http://www.dol.gov/dol/foia/guide6.htm#how)
I wanted both Approval notice and Application(ETA-750), please tell me how to make this request?
you dont need any special form to make FOIA request to DOL.
"The Department of Labor does not require a special form in order to make a FOIA request. Requests must be in writing, either handwritten or typed. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, mail, or to foiarequest@dol.gov. Although, as discussed immediately below, certain information may be required from a requester. "
U.S. Department of Labor -- Freedom of Information Act Guide (http://www.dol.gov/dol/foia/guide6.htm#how)
I wanted both Approval notice and Application(ETA-750), please tell me how to make this request?
more...
REEF�
06-06 05:21 PM
Nice work vd...lol I only see one path...
BEC_fog
05-27 11:55 AM
You can send a comment to QGA from their website if you want under the contact us link.
more...
gcbeku
08-10 01:13 PM
Gurus,
A very close friend of mine has filed EB3-I 485 with Sep 2003 PD. The job, at present, requires EB2 level qualifications, however, the employer is not too keen on sponsoring a change to EB2.
So, what options do we have ?
a) when is EB3-I Sep 2003 PD likely to be come current? 12m? 18m from now?
b) can AC21 approach be used to port this to a EB2 category ?
c) can his spouse separately file for EB2-I PERM, I140 and file for 485?
(I am assuming that EB2-I will be current approximately around this time next year).
Thanks.
A very close friend of mine has filed EB3-I 485 with Sep 2003 PD. The job, at present, requires EB2 level qualifications, however, the employer is not too keen on sponsoring a change to EB2.
So, what options do we have ?
a) when is EB3-I Sep 2003 PD likely to be come current? 12m? 18m from now?
b) can AC21 approach be used to port this to a EB2 category ?
c) can his spouse separately file for EB2-I PERM, I140 and file for 485?
(I am assuming that EB2-I will be current approximately around this time next year).
Thanks.
tikka
05-29 09:52 PM
Oh I did not know that one person can send webfax for each state.
When I click that link it said "You have already sent it"
I'll check again now
please do
thank you
When I click that link it said "You have already sent it"
I'll check again now
please do
thank you
more...
desi3933
05-19 03:30 PM
.... So effectively will be working 32 hrs instead of 40 hrs and getting paid for 32 hrs only
.....
.....
In My LCA, prevailing wage: 52K, and my salary in LCA and I-129: 64.5K
My questions:
1) Is working 32 hrs still considered full-time and do I still remain in legal H1 status? (I heard that in US more than 30 hrs is considered full-time?)
2) Since my effective annual salary will be less than 64K due to working for only 32 hrs,will i be out of status? Can the company cut my salary below the rate of pay mentioned on my LCA but higher than(or equal to) the Prevailing Wage mentioned on my LCA?
3) If i try for H1B transfer after few months using paychecks of 32hrs salary only,can that be denied?
4) Are there any other options(without filing any H1B/LCA amendment) to maintain my H1 status while still working for 32 hrs only?
5) IF company files LCA/H1B amendment, then do they have to again use the wage survey for 2009 or they can use the same one used for my initial 1st LCA filing? Do they evaluate the entire H1B application again for amendment? Can the H1B amendment be denied?
.....
1. As per Feb 20, 1992 USCIS memo, the full-time work is generally considered to be 35-40 hours per week or whatever is appropriate for the occupation. For example, air traffic controllers work 30 hours a week because of the stress. Then, in that case 30 hours would be "full time".
2. The employer MUST notify the DOL and/or USCIS in advance by filing amended petition if the terms of the employment changes during the validity period of H1B1 petition.
3. It is very common to file H1B amendment for changing from full time to part time, changing job location, or changes in job duties.
Have a good day!
________________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
.....
.....
In My LCA, prevailing wage: 52K, and my salary in LCA and I-129: 64.5K
My questions:
1) Is working 32 hrs still considered full-time and do I still remain in legal H1 status? (I heard that in US more than 30 hrs is considered full-time?)
2) Since my effective annual salary will be less than 64K due to working for only 32 hrs,will i be out of status? Can the company cut my salary below the rate of pay mentioned on my LCA but higher than(or equal to) the Prevailing Wage mentioned on my LCA?
3) If i try for H1B transfer after few months using paychecks of 32hrs salary only,can that be denied?
4) Are there any other options(without filing any H1B/LCA amendment) to maintain my H1 status while still working for 32 hrs only?
5) IF company files LCA/H1B amendment, then do they have to again use the wage survey for 2009 or they can use the same one used for my initial 1st LCA filing? Do they evaluate the entire H1B application again for amendment? Can the H1B amendment be denied?
.....
1. As per Feb 20, 1992 USCIS memo, the full-time work is generally considered to be 35-40 hours per week or whatever is appropriate for the occupation. For example, air traffic controllers work 30 hours a week because of the stress. Then, in that case 30 hours would be "full time".
2. The employer MUST notify the DOL and/or USCIS in advance by filing amended petition if the terms of the employment changes during the validity period of H1B1 petition.
3. It is very common to file H1B amendment for changing from full time to part time, changing job location, or changes in job duties.
Have a good day!
________________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
buehler
06-03 01:09 PM
May be I am not understanding the question right...I think the question was - what are the STEM disciplines? I know the website lists a bunch of occupations that require one of the STEM degrees. So to look at what are the STEM degrees, I chose Browse By STEM Degree and in that Scroll menu are all the majors - starts with Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering....
The question that was asked was - is Statistics a STEM discipline. That cannot be answered from that page even though it looks so. For e.g if I choose the Mathematics Major, it only lists the occupation that requires a Math Major and not the disciplines under Math. For e.g. one one of the occupation is Natural Sciences Managers which is an occupation and not exactly a discipline.
The question that was asked was - is Statistics a STEM discipline. That cannot be answered from that page even though it looks so. For e.g if I choose the Mathematics Major, it only lists the occupation that requires a Math Major and not the disciplines under Math. For e.g. one one of the occupation is Natural Sciences Managers which is an occupation and not exactly a discipline.
more...
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
stupendousman11
09-24 01:43 PM
EB2 India from NC.
Filed EAD renewal at TSC (my 485, however, is pending at NSC) on Aug 6. RD Aug 7. No LUDs since the notice was issued.
EAD CPO email on 9/23 :)
Wife's EAD (applied together) still pending. No LUDs either.
Filed EAD renewal at TSC (my 485, however, is pending at NSC) on Aug 6. RD Aug 7. No LUDs since the notice was issued.
EAD CPO email on 9/23 :)
Wife's EAD (applied together) still pending. No LUDs either.
more...
santb1975
12-24 09:33 PM
^^^
aviko21
10-05 07:59 PM
our paroles were updated on the website as being mailed on sept26, we still haven't received them but we did receive ead cards which were approved on sept 28. No sign or notice of AP or FP yet
more...
Dhundhun
11-21 04:12 PM
#1. Usually duration, designation and salary to be provided by company.
#2. The role or work related description can be provided by co-worker.
If RFE is related to #1, and company is closed, then lawyer (or yourself) has to present your case with whatever evidences are there (e.g. company is closed, follow up with ex-management to get certificates, etc).
#2. The role or work related description can be provided by co-worker.
If RFE is related to #1, and company is closed, then lawyer (or yourself) has to present your case with whatever evidences are there (e.g. company is closed, follow up with ex-management to get certificates, etc).
aguy
08-23 01:17 AM
Hi,
My first NIW/I140 was concurrent filed with I485 for both my wife and me. When they denied I140, the USCIS also denied I485s for both of us. I have a pending MTR for that I140.
While the MTR was pending, I filed another NIW/I140, which was approved. I noticed that the approval notice has the A# that was on the I485 of the first petition.
So, should I assume that my the USCIS has interfiled my I485 automatically and my old PD is active?
Thanks.
My first NIW/I140 was concurrent filed with I485 for both my wife and me. When they denied I140, the USCIS also denied I485s for both of us. I have a pending MTR for that I140.
While the MTR was pending, I filed another NIW/I140, which was approved. I noticed that the approval notice has the A# that was on the I485 of the first petition.
So, should I assume that my the USCIS has interfiled my I485 automatically and my old PD is active?
Thanks.
more...
Chelo
07-21 08:38 AM
and he is cute..., that is a must
Honda
09-05 03:59 PM
You need to wait another 5 years to get your GC. That's my prediction.
anilsal
03-17 01:19 PM
it is very important that you seriously consider the options you have at the earliest.
You should try to talk to an immigration attorney at the earliest.
Reading your case, I think best would be for you to find another job and file a new PERM application. You will retain the earlier priority date.
Additionally, have you considered getting a 3 year H1B extension based on the approved 140? I am not sure whether you can do it because you no longer work for this company. So, when you got a H1B transfer (for the new company B), did they give you 3 years or 1year extension for H1B?
You should try to talk to an immigration attorney at the earliest.
Reading your case, I think best would be for you to find another job and file a new PERM application. You will retain the earlier priority date.
Additionally, have you considered getting a 3 year H1B extension based on the approved 140? I am not sure whether you can do it because you no longer work for this company. So, when you got a H1B transfer (for the new company B), did they give you 3 years or 1year extension for H1B?
lostinbeta
10-03 01:29 PM
That isn't fair. I don't know trig like that.
:::weeps in corner::::(
:::weeps in corner::::(
softwareguy
09-08 12:47 PM
Well, this is nothing new, in State Governments so many times they mandate that only companies that listed in that state have right to big contracts. What small women owned, disadvantages, veteran owned companies do is provide a front to big operators like Accenture, IBM. At times then the small company hires a Senior Manager and finally it becomes all IBM operation from India or Phillipines.
On other times the State mandates all work be done inside the State. Then you have H1 and L1 visa holders. This is business as usual.
Actually it is quite a decent engagement practice. State owned companies get a piece of the big cake and get a chance to learn from big players and state gets the quality work at a fairly decent rate. So it is all win-win. At times they mandate "In State" workers only - so that it helps the local economy... that is where the Infosys & Wipros might hurt a bit, as the cost to put guys in NYC versus Ohio from Bangalore is identical but billing rate advantage between NYC and Ohio is vastly different and they might have hire locally.
On other times the State mandates all work be done inside the State. Then you have H1 and L1 visa holders. This is business as usual.
Actually it is quite a decent engagement practice. State owned companies get a piece of the big cake and get a chance to learn from big players and state gets the quality work at a fairly decent rate. So it is all win-win. At times they mandate "In State" workers only - so that it helps the local economy... that is where the Infosys & Wipros might hurt a bit, as the cost to put guys in NYC versus Ohio from Bangalore is identical but billing rate advantage between NYC and Ohio is vastly different and they might have hire locally.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét