dxldad
05-18 12:29 PM
While waiting for my GC i have completed my Management program from Northwestern University and now i got myself ported to EB2. Knowing i cant got anywhere helped me focus on my Masters and get it completed. Now i am waiting to get the GC before i look for a new job. I think porting from EB3 to EB2 is going to help people in the EB3 queue who are not supported by their companies to covert to EB2.
The only scenario where porting from EB3 to EB2 would help someone else in the EB3 queue is when the person who ported does not use the regular allotment of the EB3 and hence another EB3 person gets it. But then, a lot of EB3 folks get in front of other EB3s by moving to EB2 and this reduces the chance of the extra visa numbers reaching EB3. I would say porting is not good for the EB3 people staying in EB3 except a few situations.
The only scenario where porting from EB3 to EB2 would help someone else in the EB3 queue is when the person who ported does not use the regular allotment of the EB3 and hence another EB3 person gets it. But then, a lot of EB3 folks get in front of other EB3s by moving to EB2 and this reduces the chance of the extra visa numbers reaching EB3. I would say porting is not good for the EB3 people staying in EB3 except a few situations.
meridiani.planum
03-12 06:38 PM
Would anyone know if there is a third valid case for H1 extension i.e.
LC approved, I140 pending (just a month) but LC is less than 365 days old?
My LC has been approved but will be only pending for 360 days on the day my H1 expires, I140 is pending and sixth year is going to be up this June. Can I extend or would i be forced to recapture some of my time outside US?
From what I know your options are:
- recpature time outside
- spend some time outside right now
- change status to H4, then back to H1 when LC is old enough
if you have filed your 485 you can even jump to EAD, then file the H1 extension when eligible. You would need to leave the US and re-enter to activate that H1 (because using EAD would have put you into this AOS-Pending status)
LC approved, I140 pending (just a month) but LC is less than 365 days old?
My LC has been approved but will be only pending for 360 days on the day my H1 expires, I140 is pending and sixth year is going to be up this June. Can I extend or would i be forced to recapture some of my time outside US?
From what I know your options are:
- recpature time outside
- spend some time outside right now
- change status to H4, then back to H1 when LC is old enough
if you have filed your 485 you can even jump to EAD, then file the H1 extension when eligible. You would need to leave the US and re-enter to activate that H1 (because using EAD would have put you into this AOS-Pending status)
desi3933
07-06 12:24 PM
As part of Class action lawsuit can we ask for recapturing of all unused visa numbers? I believe the number is at least 300K, it covers the green cards for 2003, 2004 and 2005. 2006 can go with 2008 quota. So everyone will be happy.
I believe this is the provision we should fight for instead of CIRcus.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks
Sree
From legal point of view - there is no unused visa numbers. USCIS can issue not more than 140k GCs. Since it is "not more than", there is no unused visa numbers.
As per law, it is not permitted to carry over remaining visa numbers either.
Only a new bill can "claim" visa numbers this way.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
I believe this is the provision we should fight for instead of CIRcus.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks
Sree
From legal point of view - there is no unused visa numbers. USCIS can issue not more than 140k GCs. Since it is "not more than", there is no unused visa numbers.
As per law, it is not permitted to carry over remaining visa numbers either.
Only a new bill can "claim" visa numbers this way.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
crazymish
03-05 02:15 PM
Hi People,
I have been hearing a few things on the renewal and I cant seem to get a concrete picture here. Would appreciate a look here.
I am applying for an advance parole renewal for my wife, me and her, we did not apply for the GC at the same time, I applied during the hullabaloo July 2007 times under the old fee structure and she was applied later on in the following year 2008 under the new fee structure of $1010 as a derivative under my application. Her I-797 receipt notice indicates that a fee of $1010 was paid out. My I-797 indicates $300 odd as separate fees.
Given the above, is she exempt from paying the $305/$340 for the Advance Parole/EAD. A USCIS agent that I talked to says that anything after July 30th 2007 is exempt but she could well be reading from a piece of paper without actual knowledge of the intricacies. A paralegal at my lawyer's office said that she needs to pay, but somehow I am not convinced.
Would appreciate a little insight here.
Thx,
M
I have been hearing a few things on the renewal and I cant seem to get a concrete picture here. Would appreciate a look here.
I am applying for an advance parole renewal for my wife, me and her, we did not apply for the GC at the same time, I applied during the hullabaloo July 2007 times under the old fee structure and she was applied later on in the following year 2008 under the new fee structure of $1010 as a derivative under my application. Her I-797 receipt notice indicates that a fee of $1010 was paid out. My I-797 indicates $300 odd as separate fees.
Given the above, is she exempt from paying the $305/$340 for the Advance Parole/EAD. A USCIS agent that I talked to says that anything after July 30th 2007 is exempt but she could well be reading from a piece of paper without actual knowledge of the intricacies. A paralegal at my lawyer's office said that she needs to pay, but somehow I am not convinced.
Would appreciate a little insight here.
Thx,
M
more...
ssksubash
11-12 03:10 PM
Gurus,
I am on H1B in USA and now I am planning to set up a company in India. Will I be violating any laws by doing this.
Can I operate the company from USA and still get payed in India. My clients will be paying my company in India.
Will I have to pay taxes in USA.
Thank you for your time.
I am on H1B in USA and now I am planning to set up a company in India. Will I be violating any laws by doing this.
Can I operate the company from USA and still get payed in India. My clients will be paying my company in India.
Will I have to pay taxes in USA.
Thank you for your time.
letstalklc
05-31 09:09 PM
Thanks so much sumggymba, just one more thing if you know. Do they file eb2 ?
One of my cousin works in oracle and he has mentioned to me that oracle is not filing in EB2 category (they used to file before), not sure is it for every one or depends on team to team or person to person.
I would advice you better check in advance as soon as you have job confirmation
One of my cousin works in oracle and he has mentioned to me that oracle is not filing in EB2 category (they used to file before), not sure is it for every one or depends on team to team or person to person.
I would advice you better check in advance as soon as you have job confirmation
more...
brb2
04-05 08:24 AM
....If there is so much resistance to the bill in the senate, imagine the resistance that it will receive in the house and the various voting processes that it has to go through.
I think, passage of Frist bill with no 'guest worker' provisions for 'undocumented workers' or a separate bill altogether dedicated to legal immigration provisions are our safest bets.
Any thoughts?
This bill if passed in the senate will NOT go to the house. It will go to the house and senate joint conference committee where a sensible common ground is found. This will save house reps who can say that they voted against amenesty while still having a bill passed.
The danger right now is that Kyle and others who are against amnesty (that is what even I would call it!) are trying to put in amendments that would be the poison-pill that will bring the whole bill down. It is very likely that no bill may pass the senate. If the democrats try to gain the 51% vote to end debate and vote on the existing bill, the only tool with republicans is to use the fillibuster and then the democrats will need 61 votes to overcome it which they don't have.
I think, passage of Frist bill with no 'guest worker' provisions for 'undocumented workers' or a separate bill altogether dedicated to legal immigration provisions are our safest bets.
Any thoughts?
This bill if passed in the senate will NOT go to the house. It will go to the house and senate joint conference committee where a sensible common ground is found. This will save house reps who can say that they voted against amenesty while still having a bill passed.
The danger right now is that Kyle and others who are against amnesty (that is what even I would call it!) are trying to put in amendments that would be the poison-pill that will bring the whole bill down. It is very likely that no bill may pass the senate. If the democrats try to gain the 51% vote to end debate and vote on the existing bill, the only tool with republicans is to use the fillibuster and then the democrats will need 61 votes to overcome it which they don't have.
vinabath
06-13 10:41 AM
Success Formula for EB2-I:
1)- Get rid of all EB3 => EB2 conversions
2)- Get rid of all Subs
And there you go we have a fair FIFO system, but hey do our desi folks agree with this :eek: I bet they don't, when they themselves don't like FIFO and straightforward system and how come we expect USCIS to be straightforward and follow FIFO:confused:
Moral of story: Hang in where you are, its already very complicated PD,RD, ND, Country cap, EB cat ... blah .... blah
Nice point buddy..... every situation has work around solutions. like subs and eb3 - eb2 conversions. but people do need to sacrifice like.....
Paying for the labor sub and working for greedy desi companies...
and not all people are eligible for subs or conversions. Even if they are eligible they might not want to make sacrifices.....
1)- Get rid of all EB3 => EB2 conversions
2)- Get rid of all Subs
And there you go we have a fair FIFO system, but hey do our desi folks agree with this :eek: I bet they don't, when they themselves don't like FIFO and straightforward system and how come we expect USCIS to be straightforward and follow FIFO:confused:
Moral of story: Hang in where you are, its already very complicated PD,RD, ND, Country cap, EB cat ... blah .... blah
Nice point buddy..... every situation has work around solutions. like subs and eb3 - eb2 conversions. but people do need to sacrifice like.....
Paying for the labor sub and working for greedy desi companies...
and not all people are eligible for subs or conversions. Even if they are eligible they might not want to make sacrifices.....
more...
sayantan76
05-31 09:04 PM
A friend of mine just came from India. Works for a bodyshopper. He is transferring to L-1A so that he can file in EB-1 multinational manager. Is this possible? What are the minimum requirements for EB-1?
If it is possible this guy will be laughing a year from now, gc in hand, while we all fume and fret over retrogression, labor, i-140 etc..
My company has filed for EB-1 multinational manager for me.....I was on L1A earlier. I dont think the process is as fast as some folks think......specially since for EB1 manager category I140 premium processing is not allowed......
I guess the requirement for L1A is that one should be managing a business, people and processes...... and should have been employed in managerial capacity for the same company outside US......once L1A is done (it takes 5-6 days under premium procesing).....my understanding is that it establishes a strong basis for EB1 filing
If it is possible this guy will be laughing a year from now, gc in hand, while we all fume and fret over retrogression, labor, i-140 etc..
My company has filed for EB-1 multinational manager for me.....I was on L1A earlier. I dont think the process is as fast as some folks think......specially since for EB1 manager category I140 premium processing is not allowed......
I guess the requirement for L1A is that one should be managing a business, people and processes...... and should have been employed in managerial capacity for the same company outside US......once L1A is done (it takes 5-6 days under premium procesing).....my understanding is that it establishes a strong basis for EB1 filing
Adam
08-20 01:03 PM
That is awesome and hilarious. Instantly my fav smily (bumping :trout: )
looks like we have a winner!! Temp, I say you take a shot at the Ya' RLY one as well - you might surprise yourself!
looks like we have a winner!! Temp, I say you take a shot at the Ya' RLY one as well - you might surprise yourself!
more...
jjava100
08-27 04:51 PM
MurthyDotCom : Moving to the Faster Lane - Changing EB3 to EB2 (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_eb3to2.html)
EbImmigrationReference: EB2 Porting (http://ebimmigrationreference.blogspot.com/search/label/EB2%20Porting)
EbImmigrationReference: EB2 Porting (http://ebimmigrationreference.blogspot.com/search/label/EB2%20Porting)
upuaut
08-16 06:58 AM
I wouldn't export it from photoshop at all.
Are you sure the tutorial called for you to export from photoshop? Can you provide a link to the tut?
I would:
Save for web as a png or a jpg, depending upon which looks better. Then choose "import" in Flash to import the object. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that you can directly import photoshop files into Flash as well. This could be useful if you have a many layered photoshop file which contains things like imported illustrator elements and such. I believe that the import keeps all the layers in place, as grouped object.
Are you sure the tutorial called for you to export from photoshop? Can you provide a link to the tut?
I would:
Save for web as a png or a jpg, depending upon which looks better. Then choose "import" in Flash to import the object. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that you can directly import photoshop files into Flash as well. This could be useful if you have a many layered photoshop file which contains things like imported illustrator elements and such. I believe that the import keeps all the layers in place, as grouped object.
more...
rally
07-12 11:35 AM
Wasn't it Condi who said that this fiasco was a 'small inconvenience' to the applicants ?? A creative open letter ad highlighting the absurdity of this comment in a major paper would drive the message home, just like Alberto Gonzalez's classmates from Harvard did when they published an ad in the Washington post : http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2007/Page%20A13%205-15-07.pdf
I think this is a really good idea. Can we pursue this to completion?
I think this is a really good idea. Can we pursue this to completion?
Siddharta
01-11 11:03 PM
Per Canadian Immigration law, if a person is offered a PR and if thats not used, then that person wont be given another PR the second time. ....
Do you have a link to this info anywhere (official website?)
Do you have a link to this info anywhere (official website?)
more...
ak_2006
02-01 10:40 AM
I will forward this survey to my friends and colleagues. I will ask all of you to do so.
jungalee43
02-17 08:36 PM
Sent you a PM
more...
logiclife
06-20 01:58 PM
UPON MORE INFO, I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT YOU NEED EMPLOYER'S LETTER AS INITIAL EVIDENCE, SORRY FOR THE MISUNDERSTANDING.
Blog Feeds
01-09 02:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRujI2SsOh9g1QVr36qsl_U-5ZR-e7wW9kTSFEEF5waWS8s75566wdkTjFbsWRetX9-Z9xmi3yovCh5BFpyNBnmpHiJ5oETpLDvKbUbxAUBC5kxXbpOqZ5dCJs5DMsHI9B69-ihknFEzo/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRujI2SsOh9g1QVr36qsl_U-5ZR-e7wW9kTSFEEF5waWS8s75566wdkTjFbsWRetX9-Z9xmi3yovCh5BFpyNBnmpHiJ5oETpLDvKbUbxAUBC5kxXbpOqZ5dCJs5DMsHI9B69-ihknFEzo/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRujI2SsOh9g1QVr36qsl_U-5ZR-e7wW9kTSFEEF5waWS8s75566wdkTjFbsWRetX9-Z9xmi3yovCh5BFpyNBnmpHiJ5oETpLDvKbUbxAUBC5kxXbpOqZ5dCJs5DMsHI9B69-ihknFEzo/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRujI2SsOh9g1QVr36qsl_U-5ZR-e7wW9kTSFEEF5waWS8s75566wdkTjFbsWRetX9-Z9xmi3yovCh5BFpyNBnmpHiJ5oETpLDvKbUbxAUBC5kxXbpOqZ5dCJs5DMsHI9B69-ihknFEzo/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
Steve Mitchell
January 20th, 2004, 10:15 PM
I think as much as anything, you are seeing the limitation of the 75-300 at 300 mm. It's known to not be the sharpest in the world at that focal length. Plus you were shooting at 5.6. It also looks like you may not have really gotten a focus lock. Do you know where your planr of focus was?
voldemar
02-27 05:11 PM
6) The simple logic is, eb1 has higher qualifications than eb2, and eb2 has more qualifications compared to eb3. If you believe they treat everyone the same, then be happy and stick with your belief.That's true. Also EB3 cases are the easiest, EB2 a little more complex and EB1 the most complex. USCIS officers tend to do easiest job more often ;)
walkerydk
10-08 10:38 PM
I am on the same boat of Consular Processing with Priority Date of Jun EB3 with I-140 approved in Sep-2004 and still working on H1B all the time. Is there any luck of getting EAD or similar benefits as 485 filing.
No comments:
Post a Comment