add78
05-01 10:49 AM
I just got my Labor approved (PD - 2/22/2008) . Attorneys are working on filing I-140.
1. Shall I wait for I-140 PP to re-instate or go ahead with normal processing?
2. Is there 'ANY' chance that my PD will be current before I get I-140 approval when filed through normal processing?
Thanks,
Ag
1. Do not delay you i-140 application. Your Labor will expire after 180 days of its approval. You can file I-140 normal now, and if PP goes in effect, you can pay the additional fee and convert it to PP.
2. Doesn't matter as of now. Until USCIS prohibits concurrent filing, you can still file I-485 even if your I-140 is pending, if the dates open up in the summer.
1. Shall I wait for I-140 PP to re-instate or go ahead with normal processing?
2. Is there 'ANY' chance that my PD will be current before I get I-140 approval when filed through normal processing?
Thanks,
Ag
1. Do not delay you i-140 application. Your Labor will expire after 180 days of its approval. You can file I-140 normal now, and if PP goes in effect, you can pay the additional fee and convert it to PP.
2. Doesn't matter as of now. Until USCIS prohibits concurrent filing, you can still file I-485 even if your I-140 is pending, if the dates open up in the summer.
wallpaper Liverpool jul young money
pbojja
04-22 11:11 AM
Recently we have seen lot of 140 case transfers from NSC to TSC
I m starting this thread to track all the 140 transfers from NSC to TSC and approvals , Please use the below format
Type : EB3
RD to NSC : July 5 th 2007
Concurent Filing : NO
Tranfered to TSC : April 7 th 2008
Last Update : April 14 th 2008
Current Status : This case is now pending at the office to which it was transfered
Approval Date : Pending
I m starting this thread to track all the 140 transfers from NSC to TSC and approvals , Please use the below format
Type : EB3
RD to NSC : July 5 th 2007
Concurent Filing : NO
Tranfered to TSC : April 7 th 2008
Last Update : April 14 th 2008
Current Status : This case is now pending at the office to which it was transfered
Approval Date : Pending
andy garcia
09-15 10:43 PM
Do we have any guesstimate for the number of attendies for the rally?
Around 2500
Around 2500
2011 Need to os staff members , we
sundarpn
11-17 11:33 PM
Another question is when using AC-21 to change jobs via H1b transfer, (or even EAD for that matter)
how does one bring up the topic of AC-21 to the employer?
Is is as simple a putting a condition to them saying hey "I will need an employment verification letter from you to ensure that my 485 process started with my previous employer will not be hindered."
(I am not talking desi consulting coy...but other companies where the HR person might not have a clue of what AC21 is!)
how does one bring up the topic of AC-21 to the employer?
Is is as simple a putting a condition to them saying hey "I will need an employment verification letter from you to ensure that my 485 process started with my previous employer will not be hindered."
(I am not talking desi consulting coy...but other companies where the HR person might not have a clue of what AC21 is!)
more...
h1-b forever
07-23 09:18 AM
What is the confusion?
rajmehrotra
10-16 01:57 PM
B-1 is a visitor's visa with no immigration intent. H1-B is dual intent. This needs to be figured out on a case-ta-case basis by an experienced attorney.
more...
jayleno
08-13 10:32 AM
What happens if everyone opens a thread for each goldmedal?...
Michael Phelps breaks all time Olympics World Gold Record. Congratulations !!!
http://www.nbcolympics.com/newscenter/news/newsid=205871.html#phelps+sets+olympic+gold+standa rd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps
More golds expected.
Michael Phelps breaks all time Olympics World Gold Record. Congratulations !!!
http://www.nbcolympics.com/newscenter/news/newsid=205871.html#phelps+sets+olympic+gold+standa rd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps
More golds expected.
2010 Young+money+crew+members
boston_gc
05-30 10:04 PM
Thank you everyone.
I did my share and sent the webfax.
I did my share and sent the webfax.
more...
acecupid
07-08 04:39 PM
Quickly, this is what I know so far. If you bring your wife here on H4 and then decide to work on EAD you will have to change her to F1 before you stop your H1B.
This is because she will have to be in status to aply for change of status (H4 to F1). Howeve she will be stuck in US after she will be on F1, because no US Emabassy will not stamp her F1 visa in India or elsewhere is you are in US and have applied for GC
So, no problme if she comes on H4, then switches to F1 (while you are still on H1B) and stays on F1 until your dates get current and you add her on your app. After she gets F1 from H4 though, she has to stay in the US
I agree with ssterian01. I read similar views from ron gotcher's forum about this issue. Even if wife is in pure non-immigrant category like F1, it is not a problem to add her to I-485 when dates become current. If you are on H1 and cannot mailtain H1 status for long and I-485 for wife has not been applied then you have little choice but to do a COS to F1 for wife.
This is because she will have to be in status to aply for change of status (H4 to F1). Howeve she will be stuck in US after she will be on F1, because no US Emabassy will not stamp her F1 visa in India or elsewhere is you are in US and have applied for GC
So, no problme if she comes on H4, then switches to F1 (while you are still on H1B) and stays on F1 until your dates get current and you add her on your app. After she gets F1 from H4 though, she has to stay in the US
I agree with ssterian01. I read similar views from ron gotcher's forum about this issue. Even if wife is in pure non-immigrant category like F1, it is not a problem to add her to I-485 when dates become current. If you are on H1 and cannot mailtain H1 status for long and I-485 for wife has not been applied then you have little choice but to do a COS to F1 for wife.
hair Fellow young money member
thakgaya
03-30 05:53 AM
The approved 140 were from different companies. I got the update in 2 days after my attorney responded to the RFE.
more...
sanjeev_2004
08-13 10:41 PM
LUD mean every one whose LUD happend today will get Reciept next week or it means batch mass update.
hot Young Money the future!
EndlessWait
01-17 12:51 PM
what's happening these days..they are so slow..they take almost an year to process. By the time you get ur H1, you've to file the next..and so on on..
:mad:
:mad:
more...
house photos,new young money
Caliber
05-25 06:13 AM
Fax Sent
tattoo the young money members,
srarao
07-23 12:51 PM
There is no significance, just to track
more...
pictures the young money members,
Radhika
07-01 02:56 PM
I am also ready to join in the lawsuit.
I didn't presser my parents about the bc and i took INS doctors appointment next week, thinking that dates are current for complete month why rush? so I can't file by tomorrow
I didn't presser my parents about the bc and i took INS doctors appointment next week, thinking that dates are current for complete month why rush? so I can't file by tomorrow
dresses members of Young Money,
vxg
03-25 02:43 PM
If you work for a consulting firm requiring you to work for clients at various locations your labor application should have stated as various locations within US instead of one location. Since your labor was filed in 2002 i assume it was using old labor process (State labor than Regional thru BEC), the rules for that labor filing state that Company should file the state labor in the state where it is headquartered if employee is supposed to working at various locations. My labor was filed that way and application stated location as various within US. If you had that than it should not be an issue.
On March 12 2009 I got an query on my I-485.
Requesting discrepancy in the labor applied on Nov'7 2002 and present working place.
My company(abc ltd) applied labor on Nov'07 2002 while I was working at the clients(xyz) place in Los Angeles.
I got my I-140 approved on Feb'15 2006, while I was with the same client(xyz) at that time.
On Dec'04 2006 I moved to Detroit, started working with different client.
RFE goes like this.
The Documentation submitted with your application and/or a review of service records indicate that you no longer reside in the same state or geographical location as the underlying form i-140 immigration petitioner and /or job location specified by your intended permanent employer.
There fore submit a currently dated letter from your original form I-140 employer which which address this discrepancy.
I am still working with the same employer who filed my labor certification.
Any gurus who can suggest me on the query would be greatly appreciated.
On March 12 2009 I got an query on my I-485.
Requesting discrepancy in the labor applied on Nov'7 2002 and present working place.
My company(abc ltd) applied labor on Nov'07 2002 while I was working at the clients(xyz) place in Los Angeles.
I got my I-140 approved on Feb'15 2006, while I was with the same client(xyz) at that time.
On Dec'04 2006 I moved to Detroit, started working with different client.
RFE goes like this.
The Documentation submitted with your application and/or a review of service records indicate that you no longer reside in the same state or geographical location as the underlying form i-140 immigration petitioner and /or job location specified by your intended permanent employer.
There fore submit a currently dated letter from your original form I-140 employer which which address this discrepancy.
I am still working with the same employer who filed my labor certification.
Any gurus who can suggest me on the query would be greatly appreciated.
more...
makeup All »
bkarnik
05-18 09:25 PM
Welcome to our news member Selvaela..
Good job Samcam...keep up the good work :)
Good job Samcam...keep up the good work :)
girlfriend New Young Money member being
smuggymba
10-05 10:50 AM
It would be interesting to know the "process" used to legalize the illegals. If getting a GC when you're illegal is easy, I'd tear my H1 and stand in the USCIS illegal line.
hairstyles (00:01:21) Young Money
Lisap
08-03 12:27 PM
What happens if your I-485 is denied? Are you able to fix any issues or do you start all over? And on what grounds would they deny?
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
ravi_hyd
10-30 10:44 AM
.
No comments:
Post a Comment