gcdreamer05
08-13 04:36 PM
so any hopes about what would happen on oct 2008 bulletin for eb3, will it go back to nov 2001 or atleast will it go to 2003 :(
It looks like a long wait for us eb3 folks.........
It looks like a long wait for us eb3 folks.........
wallpaper Nike 6.0 High Tops For Girls.
Marphad
03-03 05:07 PM
That is not true, my lawyer who is very influential and he has some good contacts he told me that this year spill-over would be different form last year. I was stupid so didn�t believe him about July 2007, and paying it for now for not having EAD.
I know this is hard to believe especially if something comes from lawyer.
Thank's
MDix
I owe you a drink if this is true :)
I know this is hard to believe especially if something comes from lawyer.
Thank's
MDix
I owe you a drink if this is true :)
agr
08-12 09:29 PM
Just curious to know .. Does this law apply to renewals as well or just new H1B applications ?
Thanks --agr
Thanks --agr
2011 nike 60 high tops blue
glus
08-12 09:51 AM
I'm asking this question again. Can someone please respond?
Uscis will mark it received on the 3rd. Anyway, what's the difference?
Uscis will mark it received on the 3rd. Anyway, what's the difference?
more...
bskrishna
07-11 12:42 PM
I don't see what is really different. I am not talking about July 2007. I am talking about May or June bulletin 2007. Do you mean the bulletin on May or June 2007 is to utilize the visa so the dates are not the "real" date? Then how do you know Aug. 2008 move is not for the same purpose? Especially if this movement is caused by spillover.
There is chance that CIS and/or DOS know the breakdown of categories by country now as against last year. That is being a bit on the optimistic side.
There is chance that CIS and/or DOS know the breakdown of categories by country now as against last year. That is being a bit on the optimistic side.
coopheal
07-11 10:00 AM
Congrates EB2.
Hope 2008-2009 is better for EB3
Hope 2008-2009 is better for EB3
more...
haddi_No1
06-26 10:52 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501945.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Building a Wall Against Talent
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.
On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.
If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.
Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.
The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.
Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.
Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.
Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.
Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.
John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.
Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.
georgewill@washpost.com
Building a Wall Against Talent
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.
On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.
If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.
Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.
The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.
Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.
Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.
Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.
Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.
John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.
Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.
georgewill@washpost.com
2010 2011 nike 60 high tops for
cheg
07-23 04:00 PM
Thanks for the quick reply. So in my case since my husband doesn't have a RD yet for our I-485 then once we do get our RD, we can calculate that 2 yrs from that time we'll have our card ordered as well. :D :D :D I'm crossing my fingers!
my PD Aug 2004
RD Feb 2005
eb3 india
Last fingerprint in March 2007
my PD Aug 2004
RD Feb 2005
eb3 india
Last fingerprint in March 2007
more...
continuedProgress
12-28 10:40 AM
Canceled flight tix and continuing wait for AP filed on 8/2. (receipted on 8/24, if that matters)
shi120,
In case you have not seen it, I have sent you a PM.
Thanks
shi120,
In case you have not seen it, I have sent you a PM.
Thanks
hair nike high tops for girls
polapragada
09-13 09:42 PM
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
I completly agree with you.... and others supported the similar thoughts in the thread gave the gree from you all
If they want to jump to EB2 they should not not be allowed to port the PD.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
I completly agree with you.... and others supported the similar thoughts in the thread gave the gree from you all
If they want to jump to EB2 they should not not be allowed to port the PD.
more...
ashutrip
06-19 08:24 AM
NO , Atlanta handles all the traffic for East coast and South , whereas Chicao handles the traffic for the West and the Midwest .
Anybody on forum...whose labor was certified off late!!:confused:
Anybody on forum...whose labor was certified off late!!:confused:
hot hairstyles Nike Dunk High 6.0
ashishgour
09-12 05:19 PM
I am in tooo..DC rally wud not cost me $200...i was in the first one as well..:)
more...
house nike 60 shoes high tops. nike 6.0 shoes high tops for nike 60 shoes high
Ramba
09-08 12:34 PM
Well said. On top of all this, there is a huge social pressure on NRIs from Indian parents/relatives to buy a property in India. It goes like this, if Hari, Babu and Kanwal all have it, why don't you buy something in Delhi as well. Now builders have started talking in terms of crores. You call them and ask the price, they would say "point six", means zero point six crores (for 1200 sq ft 2 BHK). There is no way on this earth someone should pay that much for 1200 sq ft in Noida/Delhi/Anywhere in India.
My advise, let people, relatives say what they want to say. This market is bound to come down. Just wait and see. Thank you.
Yes. 0.6 crore for 2b apt is way too much. If you put little more money here in TX, you can buy a manson (4/5 bed room independent house) with swiming pool. However, one can not ignore the advise of having property/house in home country, for many other reasons. But the price should be reasonable/cost worthy.
My advise, let people, relatives say what they want to say. This market is bound to come down. Just wait and see. Thank you.
Yes. 0.6 crore for 2b apt is way too much. If you put little more money here in TX, you can buy a manson (4/5 bed room independent house) with swiming pool. However, one can not ignore the advise of having property/house in home country, for many other reasons. But the price should be reasonable/cost worthy.
tattoo High Tops Girls; nike 60
chocolate
06-03 03:49 PM
If you are eligible to file I-140/485 now then how come you are stuck?
Remember nothing has become law yet..
MY employer is a consulting company and i had a rfe to my h1 extension for 8th yr so he wants to wait to answer rfe , then get approval and next file for next stages. I have tried all the ways to make him file and not able to.I just hope the new labor laws will help. Acc to that he shud file for next stages in 180 days starting july 15 th right. What is this May 15 thing?Any inputs. Thanks in advance.
Remember nothing has become law yet..
MY employer is a consulting company and i had a rfe to my h1 extension for 8th yr so he wants to wait to answer rfe , then get approval and next file for next stages. I have tried all the ways to make him file and not able to.I just hope the new labor laws will help. Acc to that he shud file for next stages in 180 days starting july 15 th right. What is this May 15 thing?Any inputs. Thanks in advance.
more...
pictures Nike 6.0 x Tyson Ritter Mavrk
bidhanc
03-11 10:51 AM
I guess it's not a VERY GOOD IDEA THEN.
In all the docs that I went thru I could not see a difference between
"I-140 approved/I-485 pending and porting" and "I-140/I-485 pending and porting" (most docs refer to the latter).
I am guessing when it comes to "porting", both are the same in the eyes of USCIS??
(What I mean to ask is there any leniency with an approved I-140 and then trying to port?)
Anyone see otherwise?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
In all the docs that I went thru I could not see a difference between
"I-140 approved/I-485 pending and porting" and "I-140/I-485 pending and porting" (most docs refer to the latter).
I am guessing when it comes to "porting", both are the same in the eyes of USCIS??
(What I mean to ask is there any leniency with an approved I-140 and then trying to port?)
Anyone see otherwise?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
dresses nike 60 high tops blue
senthil1
07-05 01:31 PM
Still some Senators does not understand difference between H1b issue and GC backlog and how can they understand the Administrative issue like this. But Congress women Lofgren will get reply for her letter from DOS and USCIS.
I called the congresswomen and senator from our constituencies. They do not have any idea what I am talking about. I think I made them more confused than ever.
We need to come up with a letter format, which can be printed and send it to them by mail as well as we need to have web fax with a clear message.
I called the congresswomen and senator from our constituencies. They do not have any idea what I am talking about. I think I made them more confused than ever.
We need to come up with a letter format, which can be printed and send it to them by mail as well as we need to have web fax with a clear message.
more...
makeup Nike Dunk Low 6.0 Jr White Gym
RandyK
07-05 01:54 PM
:d
girlfriend nike high tops for girls white
reddymjm
09-10 10:28 AM
Not quite true - this is done at 140 not 485
Yes. By Law and by the Book. But I just saw in my friend circle. Most of them were US Masters.
Yes. By Law and by the Book. But I just saw in my friend circle. Most of them were US Masters.
hairstyles dresses Nike 6.0 Shoes High
GC_Optimist
09-29 11:59 AM
By not utilizing all the visa numbers USCIS is creating artificial scarcity
leading to huge Backlog. I think this needs to be highligted to the
lawmakers. or Administration.
leading to huge Backlog. I think this needs to be highligted to the
lawmakers. or Administration.
gc_wow
03-05 11:10 AM
My case did not recieve a LUD
black_logs
03-09 12:40 PM
Yeah that's the million dollar question, schedule A workers allready have 50K qouta, but that kicks off only after the regular EB3 numbers becomes unavailable, so they first use the regular EB3 number. Now they might have kept the status qou on that rule(first use regular EB-3 quota) and then instead of giving a fixed 50K quota they may use as many numbers after that. So basically what I'm saying is for non schedule A workers this amendment may not mean any thing.
It's a pessimistic view, but that's how immigration system have been in past 3-4 years.
Guys a little confused.
How does removing the cap from Schedule A, benefit the rest of us?
It's a pessimistic view, but that's how immigration system have been in past 3-4 years.
Guys a little confused.
How does removing the cap from Schedule A, benefit the rest of us?
No comments:
Post a Comment