GC9180
10-14 05:08 PM
another suggestion ..check with doctors which visitor's insurance they take
crystal
04-10 02:30 PM
I am not sure the following question in Profile is still relavent. For new members it does not make any sense.
"Would you attend the rally in DC on Sept 18th 2007"
"Would you attend the rally in DC on Sept 18th 2007"
Winner
04-09 02:36 PM
Guys and Gals,
I heard this from immigrant coworkers in my company (Consulting company with 1000+ consultants in USA, 15000+ all over the world), I�m hearing that employees are forced to us EAD instead of renewing H1B visa. Funny part here is, they did not pay for filing I485, all expenses including medical were paid by the employee.
Now they say that they will reimburse EAD filing expense and trying to force employees to use EAD once H1B expires.
Questions:
Is this legal?
Is it a common practice?
Assuming it�s legal and employees have no other choice other than using EAD, I�ve couple more questions.
If for some reason, I485 is denied and you challenge the decision using MTR, will you still be legal status if the MTR process takes several months?
Is there a limit on how many times you can challenge USCIS decision? If they reject your application 10 times and you know the reason they rejected each time is incorrect, do you get to challenge them if you have enough evidence that your application was rejected incorrectly?
Thanks for your time.
I heard this from immigrant coworkers in my company (Consulting company with 1000+ consultants in USA, 15000+ all over the world), I�m hearing that employees are forced to us EAD instead of renewing H1B visa. Funny part here is, they did not pay for filing I485, all expenses including medical were paid by the employee.
Now they say that they will reimburse EAD filing expense and trying to force employees to use EAD once H1B expires.
Questions:
Is this legal?
Is it a common practice?
Assuming it�s legal and employees have no other choice other than using EAD, I�ve couple more questions.
If for some reason, I485 is denied and you challenge the decision using MTR, will you still be legal status if the MTR process takes several months?
Is there a limit on how many times you can challenge USCIS decision? If they reject your application 10 times and you know the reason they rejected each time is incorrect, do you get to challenge them if you have enough evidence that your application was rejected incorrectly?
Thanks for your time.
eb3India
05-21 10:26 PM
oh well,
we got a bigger fish to fry, I am sure those who might be using labour subs are legals here at one point and they do have a job,
we are not going to gain much by these ammendments,
I am just curious how much authority does USCIS and DOS have to alter our situation.
I am still waiting for response from IV core members
we got a bigger fish to fry, I am sure those who might be using labour subs are legals here at one point and they do have a job,
we are not going to gain much by these ammendments,
I am just curious how much authority does USCIS and DOS have to alter our situation.
I am still waiting for response from IV core members
more...
bondgoli007
07-14 04:39 PM
I was audited on 6/09 and Fragommenr responded on 6/30...No response so far and I have emailed my Fragommen paralegal the following questions;
1. Typically how long does DOL take to respond to an Audit?
2. What kind of response can I expect? Will it be an approval or a further Audit?
3. What % of cases get a further audit after a response is filed to an initial Audit?
I will send out a response when I hear from him.
Side question: Is my Priority date the date when PERM was applied or the date the PERM will be approved?
Thanks.
1. Typically how long does DOL take to respond to an Audit?
2. What kind of response can I expect? Will it be an approval or a further Audit?
3. What % of cases get a further audit after a response is filed to an initial Audit?
I will send out a response when I hear from him.
Side question: Is my Priority date the date when PERM was applied or the date the PERM will be approved?
Thanks.
chanduv23
07-11 11:45 AM
Hi Folks,
I am one of those guys who has EAD/AP and as per the latest (Aug 08) bulletin, my PD is current.
I just called USCIS and got my 3rd service request number since Oct 2007. So far nothing has happened.
I want to know if this is going to have a negative impact on my 485 approval in anyway? Am I not supposed to have my FP done before they can approve my 485? Isn't that a pre-requisite? I just don't want to miss one more boat due to USCIS screw ups.
Please advise/suggest...
Thanks.
Moderator: apologies for cross-posting but I needed an answer soon.
I am in the same boat. I spoke to my Attorney and she says, it is not an issue. They will ask for finger prints when they start looking at your case.
I am one of those guys who has EAD/AP and as per the latest (Aug 08) bulletin, my PD is current.
I just called USCIS and got my 3rd service request number since Oct 2007. So far nothing has happened.
I want to know if this is going to have a negative impact on my 485 approval in anyway? Am I not supposed to have my FP done before they can approve my 485? Isn't that a pre-requisite? I just don't want to miss one more boat due to USCIS screw ups.
Please advise/suggest...
Thanks.
Moderator: apologies for cross-posting but I needed an answer soon.
I am in the same boat. I spoke to my Attorney and she says, it is not an issue. They will ask for finger prints when they start looking at your case.
more...
asdqwe2k
05-22 09:36 AM
Official Press release..
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPRelease052206.pdf
“This report illustrates that legal immigrants who play by the rules experience significant hardships that harm families, businesses, and, ultimately, our economy,” said Cornyn, who chairs the U.S. Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship. “I believe Congress can address these issues in a thoughtful yet decisive manner.”
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPRelease052206.pdf
“This report illustrates that legal immigrants who play by the rules experience significant hardships that harm families, businesses, and, ultimately, our economy,” said Cornyn, who chairs the U.S. Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship. “I believe Congress can address these issues in a thoughtful yet decisive manner.”
EndlessWait
12-12 03:55 PM
Now that dates for EB2 have moved to Jan 2000 PD, it might be interesting to see if we have folks in here with EB2 PD in or before Jan 2000.
lol..this is funny.. are you planning to issue another bulletin from your side based on the input at IV.. chill dude.. the bulletin issue science is really some rocket science, it defies all the fundamentals of mathematics and gravity...actually its more like 6-flag ride..rush of adrenalin..swaying on both sides..oh god its making me so dizzy....
:(
lol..this is funny.. are you planning to issue another bulletin from your side based on the input at IV.. chill dude.. the bulletin issue science is really some rocket science, it defies all the fundamentals of mathematics and gravity...actually its more like 6-flag ride..rush of adrenalin..swaying on both sides..oh god its making me so dizzy....
:(
more...
fromnaija
07-23 02:38 PM
I remember reading somewhere on USCIS website and this forum that FP taken in late 2007 (probably for all July 2007 filers) will last for the duration of AOS application...
This must be for bad FP or for missing FP for self or any family member...
I posted the following at another forum on this topic:
USCIS is developing the Biometrics Storage System (BSS) w hich will allow the re-use of fingerprints and, if an application or petition has not been adjudicated within the fifteen month validity period, USCIS will be able to simply re-submit the stored fingerprints to the FBI, without any involvement of the applicant or petitioner. See 72 FR 17172 (Apr. 6, 2007) (establishing a new system of records).
It is from this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9aecd408423b3f800b01aa0c83db a52
Further research showed that the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) actually went into effect on May 7, 2007.
DATES: The established system of
records will be effective May 7, 2007
unless comments are received that
result in a contrary determination.
This is from FR 17172 which you can find at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_register&position=all&page=17172
This must be for bad FP or for missing FP for self or any family member...
I posted the following at another forum on this topic:
USCIS is developing the Biometrics Storage System (BSS) w hich will allow the re-use of fingerprints and, if an application or petition has not been adjudicated within the fifteen month validity period, USCIS will be able to simply re-submit the stored fingerprints to the FBI, without any involvement of the applicant or petitioner. See 72 FR 17172 (Apr. 6, 2007) (establishing a new system of records).
It is from this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9aecd408423b3f800b01aa0c83db a52
Further research showed that the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) actually went into effect on May 7, 2007.
DATES: The established system of
records will be effective May 7, 2007
unless comments are received that
result in a contrary determination.
This is from FR 17172 which you can find at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_register&position=all&page=17172
kurtz_wolfgang
08-15 01:23 PM
I would suggest Jonty, not to waste your time. I posted the question in general. It wasn't specific to you. If anybody is free and feels like, they can answer.:rolleyes::cool::cool::cool:
more...
gc_chahiye
10-05 04:12 PM
How big of a risk would it be to file on EB2? If they reject me for EB2, would it hurt my chances on applying again on EB3? How much time would I lose in case of a rejection?
getting rejected in EB2 does not impact your case for EB3 (they might look up that older file and see that it was rejected because of education qualification for EB2, but does qualify for EB3).
You will probably get an RFE at I-140 time. USCIS will either reject this case, in which case you will lose this complete GC process and need to restart from scratch (so you'll lose maybe 1 years worth of place in the queue). Or they might ask you to accept this in EB3, in which case you dont lose your LC and the PD that goes with it.
getting rejected in EB2 does not impact your case for EB3 (they might look up that older file and see that it was rejected because of education qualification for EB2, but does qualify for EB3).
You will probably get an RFE at I-140 time. USCIS will either reject this case, in which case you will lose this complete GC process and need to restart from scratch (so you'll lose maybe 1 years worth of place in the queue). Or they might ask you to accept this in EB3, in which case you dont lose your LC and the PD that goes with it.
sk26
04-13 03:46 PM
In my Query it states as 30 days...
This is my first post, in this website.
I recieved an RFE on my I-485 .
This is a brief summary as to what was asked,
if I am still working for the current employer, or for an intended future employer.
1. Specific Job Title
2. Duties of the offered position
3. Minimum education or training requirements
4. Start date of the employment.
5. Offered salary or wages.
Mine is EB-2 PD APRIL -04.
I did not change my employer, and all the quries asked were already answered during the labor and I-140 stage.
Did any one get similar RFE , plase let me know more in detail
My concern is why would USCIS want to know these details at this stage?
Thanks
SK26
This is my first post, in this website.
I recieved an RFE on my I-485 .
This is a brief summary as to what was asked,
if I am still working for the current employer, or for an intended future employer.
1. Specific Job Title
2. Duties of the offered position
3. Minimum education or training requirements
4. Start date of the employment.
5. Offered salary or wages.
Mine is EB-2 PD APRIL -04.
I did not change my employer, and all the quries asked were already answered during the labor and I-140 stage.
Did any one get similar RFE , plase let me know more in detail
My concern is why would USCIS want to know these details at this stage?
Thanks
SK26
more...
venky_handsy
03-07 10:46 PM
you are fine. if you are on vacation for x number of hours...that is fine.
they will see per month salary ..or per hour salary matches your labor wages...be kool.
they will see per month salary ..or per hour salary matches your labor wages...be kool.
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.
more...
deba
02-04 09:25 AM
I am surprised to hear that you were not allowed to board from India. As I mentioned, I have no idea what the procedures are right now. You might run into an official or Airline agent who is not aware of the rules. In my case, I traveled from the US couple of times with AP/Canada PR. First time it was AA/BA and the next time it was AA/Emirates. The checking you will go through will include both immigration and airline staff. If you are transiting thru London Heathrow, you will have to get past a passport check and security screening again to get to your boarding gate. This is where the Airport staff will check your papers. The gate agent will check your papers at the boarding gate and might even issue a different boarding pass. In case you have any doubts, I suggest you take another route or get a visa. The higher cost you might pay by flying Lufthansa for example, will offset the cost of a visa. You don't want to get stranded in any case. Good Luck.
summitpointe
04-16 02:53 PM
Open an MTR ASAP. It sometimes takes lot of time(may be one year) for final decision.
As your H1B is valid for another one year, just to have a support talk with your attorney about filing a PERM labor ASAP.
As your H1B is valid for another one year, just to have a support talk with your attorney about filing a PERM labor ASAP.
more...
hebron
08-10 10:15 AM
Suggestions....anybody? ^^^^
rrajasekar
09-02 09:42 AM
The office staff from our congressman tried their best and said they couldn't get it approved. However, my wife received the EAD with an approval date just the same day of previous expiry. It has been processed within 30 days. Either USCIS processed quickly or the request from congressman office at least brought our application to the top. Anyways, we are relieved. Good luck to you all.
thescadaman
11-04 09:23 AM
A little over a months time, I received a letter saying that the typo on my last name has been corrected. I could confirm that since the mailing address had all the correct details.
Hence, I guess, their typo correction system is a bit slow but it works!
ISSUE RESOLVED!
Hence, I guess, their typo correction system is a bit slow but it works!
ISSUE RESOLVED!
dassumi
12-23 02:58 PM
This interests me. I am in the cross roads of my career where I have been offered a job that requires a lot of international travel. I was told that since we are adjusting status, it is not a status and countries like Thailand (any country) will not give you a visa as you dont have a status in the US. Would like to know more on this topic - I am sure there are others in this boat.
Hi Guys,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
Hi Guys,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
designserve
11-08 01:12 PM
The embassy is free nowadays... calendar opens up 2 weeks before. I went thru the process 2 months ago...It was the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment