vkmurthy260
06-20 05:48 PM
Hi,
I have Visa stamped in my passport till 2010 , my passport expires in July 2008 , so i was given I 94 till july 2008 when i last entered USA. I have renewed my passport . How do i change the dates in I 94 . I tried Def. Inspection sites in San francisco they say it cannot be done there . Can i travel to mexico and come back the same day and get a new I 94 .
Thanks
Kris.
I have Visa stamped in my passport till 2010 , my passport expires in July 2008 , so i was given I 94 till july 2008 when i last entered USA. I have renewed my passport . How do i change the dates in I 94 . I tried Def. Inspection sites in San francisco they say it cannot be done there . Can i travel to mexico and come back the same day and get a new I 94 .
Thanks
Kris.
wallpaper Iron Butterfly Background
chnaveen
07-07 05:11 PM
friends,
We are in a process of divorce . Last year I filed employment based 485 with my wife as depended. Now we both have EAD and she is working under EAD. If we divorce while 485 is pending who go out of status? Me or my wife? Is both 485 will be canceled? Or both are safe. If I marry again is it possible to bring my new wife under my filed 485 petition?
Thanks for your help.
balan
I485 Filed on July 2, 2007.
Who ever is dependent, they have to be in the relationship with the Primary until the GC is approved. If the relationship gets broken before the GC approval, the dependent's GC will be denied. But again, if the USCIS is not aware of the divorce and no RFE's then even the dependent also gets approved. But one should always inform USCIS about their change in Status, it may be an Address Change, Employer Change, Marital Status change.
The Primary's GC application will not be affected with the Divorce.
We are in a process of divorce . Last year I filed employment based 485 with my wife as depended. Now we both have EAD and she is working under EAD. If we divorce while 485 is pending who go out of status? Me or my wife? Is both 485 will be canceled? Or both are safe. If I marry again is it possible to bring my new wife under my filed 485 petition?
Thanks for your help.
balan
I485 Filed on July 2, 2007.
Who ever is dependent, they have to be in the relationship with the Primary until the GC is approved. If the relationship gets broken before the GC approval, the dependent's GC will be denied. But again, if the USCIS is not aware of the divorce and no RFE's then even the dependent also gets approved. But one should always inform USCIS about their change in Status, it may be an Address Change, Employer Change, Marital Status change.
The Primary's GC application will not be affected with the Divorce.
greencard07
09-26 10:18 AM
Hi All,
NSC received my I765 applications on June 21st. I am still waiting for my EAD. I have seen many people from NSC got their approval for the same time frame. Is there anypone in the same boat. Is this something I should be worried about.
Thanks!
July 2 filer with NSC, receipt notice on Sep.7, Spouse's EAD approved and card ordered today. But mine is still pending. It seems NSC is speeding up for EAD. Good sign anyway.
NSC received my I765 applications on June 21st. I am still waiting for my EAD. I have seen many people from NSC got their approval for the same time frame. Is there anypone in the same boat. Is this something I should be worried about.
Thanks!
July 2 filer with NSC, receipt notice on Sep.7, Spouse's EAD approved and card ordered today. But mine is still pending. It seems NSC is speeding up for EAD. Good sign anyway.
2011 wallpaper pink black.
solaris27
03-31 08:52 AM
Congratulations
more...
hary536
05-20 03:51 PM
Hi, Thanks for the reply.
In my company, even though everyone works 32 hrs, they are still considered full-time, as we keep receiving the regular full-time benefits.
So in that case, do they still have to file an Amendment? If incase, they file amendment,then do they file just LCA amendment or H1B amendment.
Also, if instead of working 32 hrs, if they allow me to work 40 hrs, but reduce my annual salary but maintain higher than the prevailing wage, then also do they need to
file an amendment? If yes, which H1B or LCA or both?
Can you pls move this post to the "Ask an Attorney" section, so that i can get a reply from any attorney also?
1. As per Feb 20, 1992 USCIS memo, the full-time work is generally considered to be 35-40 hours per week or whatever is appropriate for the occupation. For example, air traffic controllers work 30 hours a week because of the stress. Then, in that case 30 hours would be "full time".
2. The employer MUST notify the DOL and/or USCIS in advance by filing amended petition if the terms of the employment changes during the validity period of H1B1 petition.
3. It is very common to file H1B amendment for changing from full time to part time, changing job location, or changes in job duties.
Have a good day!
________________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
In my company, even though everyone works 32 hrs, they are still considered full-time, as we keep receiving the regular full-time benefits.
So in that case, do they still have to file an Amendment? If incase, they file amendment,then do they file just LCA amendment or H1B amendment.
Also, if instead of working 32 hrs, if they allow me to work 40 hrs, but reduce my annual salary but maintain higher than the prevailing wage, then also do they need to
file an amendment? If yes, which H1B or LCA or both?
Can you pls move this post to the "Ask an Attorney" section, so that i can get a reply from any attorney also?
1. As per Feb 20, 1992 USCIS memo, the full-time work is generally considered to be 35-40 hours per week or whatever is appropriate for the occupation. For example, air traffic controllers work 30 hours a week because of the stress. Then, in that case 30 hours would be "full time".
2. The employer MUST notify the DOL and/or USCIS in advance by filing amended petition if the terms of the employment changes during the validity period of H1B1 petition.
3. It is very common to file H1B amendment for changing from full time to part time, changing job location, or changes in job duties.
Have a good day!
________________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
chanduv23
11-10 06:13 AM
And shat exactly is the point of this discussion again? More ranting?
You know, maybe few people have noticed this, but when it comes to selecting the "lawyer", you have to pay, if you want your own lawyer. A lot of ppl are very happy that the company pays. So people want their cake and eat it too. They want the company to pay for the lawyer, BUT BUT they want the lawyer to work for them and even let them, when they can leave the employer without negatively affecting their GC process.
The problem is not just the lawyers or the HR ppl guys. The problem is also partly US. If we were to insist that WE pay for the process and we hire our own lawyers, we would have a LOT more control on the process. However, I understand that not all of us have that option, but then those of us who do not have that option, have to thank their stars that they did not end up paying close to $10K for this whole process. Face the facts guys, if your company is paying ur lawyer, ur lawyer is working for them NOT you. Your company and NOT you is the lawyer's client, so he is LEGALLY REQUIRED to serve them and NOT you.
We curse the USCIS everyday (I do too), but we have to admit, they have done an EXCELLENT job these past few months and almost everyone I know has received their EADs, APs and FP notices within the stipulated 90 day period. Let us commend the USCIS for that. We criticized and cursed them when the the time had come to do so. Now they have done a good job so let us commend them for it. Some USCIS centers are even doing actual finger printing on Saturdays (in the state of CT. My friend actually did his on a Saturday). They do not have to do any of this, BUT THEY ARE DOING IT.
About HR, again we all hate them, but they do the best they can. Ah what the heck i'll give you guys this one ;) Go ahead curse away :p. Although I will say this, some HR ppl are rather helpful. I have worked for 2 companies and touch wood both helped me a lot with paperwork and were quite prompt.
I would say USICS and Lawyer are OK, but HR - no way. Very few HR are helpful. Usueally HR in small companies are quite helpful. HR is the most influential person in an organization. Never never assume HR helps you. If HR talks sweet - then it is most dangerous - they can mess with your lives. The HR in my first company was the best and I have never seen such people anywhere else - he was good because he was basically and MBA with HR experence. He used to take independent decisions and used to do "what he feels is right" and manage his bosses well - such are rare find. Most HRs are difficult and dangerous to handle. If something goes wrong and you approach the HR, HR "though is supposed to help you" will pretend as if he/she is helping you but will work against you.
It may sound silly but in one of the company I worked, I had issues with the travel agent who was giving me tough time (mine was a travel job) and the HR screwed me big time because of her friendships with the travel agency (very popular one) whereas I thought HR would actually help sort issues.
Many people fail to realise that the corporate world is very selfish - companies want you for your skill - when they give you a job it means they are paying for time and skill and they do not have any ties with you. You must know how to play your cards and always watch your back.
Lawyers and USCIS are just external entities like the travel agent I mentioned above. They will be happy to work with you if they have a choice. So it is your choice.
You know, maybe few people have noticed this, but when it comes to selecting the "lawyer", you have to pay, if you want your own lawyer. A lot of ppl are very happy that the company pays. So people want their cake and eat it too. They want the company to pay for the lawyer, BUT BUT they want the lawyer to work for them and even let them, when they can leave the employer without negatively affecting their GC process.
The problem is not just the lawyers or the HR ppl guys. The problem is also partly US. If we were to insist that WE pay for the process and we hire our own lawyers, we would have a LOT more control on the process. However, I understand that not all of us have that option, but then those of us who do not have that option, have to thank their stars that they did not end up paying close to $10K for this whole process. Face the facts guys, if your company is paying ur lawyer, ur lawyer is working for them NOT you. Your company and NOT you is the lawyer's client, so he is LEGALLY REQUIRED to serve them and NOT you.
We curse the USCIS everyday (I do too), but we have to admit, they have done an EXCELLENT job these past few months and almost everyone I know has received their EADs, APs and FP notices within the stipulated 90 day period. Let us commend the USCIS for that. We criticized and cursed them when the the time had come to do so. Now they have done a good job so let us commend them for it. Some USCIS centers are even doing actual finger printing on Saturdays (in the state of CT. My friend actually did his on a Saturday). They do not have to do any of this, BUT THEY ARE DOING IT.
About HR, again we all hate them, but they do the best they can. Ah what the heck i'll give you guys this one ;) Go ahead curse away :p. Although I will say this, some HR ppl are rather helpful. I have worked for 2 companies and touch wood both helped me a lot with paperwork and were quite prompt.
I would say USICS and Lawyer are OK, but HR - no way. Very few HR are helpful. Usueally HR in small companies are quite helpful. HR is the most influential person in an organization. Never never assume HR helps you. If HR talks sweet - then it is most dangerous - they can mess with your lives. The HR in my first company was the best and I have never seen such people anywhere else - he was good because he was basically and MBA with HR experence. He used to take independent decisions and used to do "what he feels is right" and manage his bosses well - such are rare find. Most HRs are difficult and dangerous to handle. If something goes wrong and you approach the HR, HR "though is supposed to help you" will pretend as if he/she is helping you but will work against you.
It may sound silly but in one of the company I worked, I had issues with the travel agent who was giving me tough time (mine was a travel job) and the HR screwed me big time because of her friendships with the travel agency (very popular one) whereas I thought HR would actually help sort issues.
Many people fail to realise that the corporate world is very selfish - companies want you for your skill - when they give you a job it means they are paying for time and skill and they do not have any ties with you. You must know how to play your cards and always watch your back.
Lawyers and USCIS are just external entities like the travel agent I mentioned above. They will be happy to work with you if they have a choice. So it is your choice.
more...
purgan
01-22 11:35 AM
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5585.html
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
2010 PINK BUTTERFLY WALL PAPER
reddog
04-17 12:00 PM
My passport expires in 6 months. What is the earliest time before passport expiry can I apply for my Indian passport renewal. How long will it take to process it.
You can renew your passport 1 year in advance and for less than 6 months after expiry.
The processing time depends on the consulate you are applying to.
However, it usually takes under a month to get it processed. Most consulate offices do have the tatkal system, if you need it in a week.
http://www.cgisf.org/passport/ppts_npp.html
You can renew your passport 1 year in advance and for less than 6 months after expiry.
The processing time depends on the consulate you are applying to.
However, it usually takes under a month to get it processed. Most consulate offices do have the tatkal system, if you need it in a week.
http://www.cgisf.org/passport/ppts_npp.html
more...
txh1b
08-25 02:33 PM
AC21 is complicated enough and you need to have a qualified lawyer (get a second opinion from one) if your company lawyer is the only one that is looking at it.
1. These seem different to me and I am sure the job descriptions under the ONET page would also be different for these SOC codes. This would mean your AC21 will be risky.
2. This sounds more like a same/similar position.
3. You could do that. Your employer should be ready to give you a letter that your profferred position upon approval of GC is an Engineer position. If there is any mention of a manager, USCIS may be wondering why anyone would take a demotion (sorta) after the GC is approved.
4. You can but employer tailoring the description to fit your needs might be bordering to fraud.
5. a. You will retain your old PD.
b. This is a gray area. You are technically not qualifying under AC21 however, it is possible as AC21 filing is not mandatory. If your case gets in audit, you will run the risk. Calculate the risk/reward and act.
6. This sounds repetitive as #3.
1. These seem different to me and I am sure the job descriptions under the ONET page would also be different for these SOC codes. This would mean your AC21 will be risky.
2. This sounds more like a same/similar position.
3. You could do that. Your employer should be ready to give you a letter that your profferred position upon approval of GC is an Engineer position. If there is any mention of a manager, USCIS may be wondering why anyone would take a demotion (sorta) after the GC is approved.
4. You can but employer tailoring the description to fit your needs might be bordering to fraud.
5. a. You will retain your old PD.
b. This is a gray area. You are technically not qualifying under AC21 however, it is possible as AC21 filing is not mandatory. If your case gets in audit, you will run the risk. Calculate the risk/reward and act.
6. This sounds repetitive as #3.
hair utterfly wallpaper border.
franklin
10-12 10:53 AM
Please move this thread to the appropriate forum, this has nothing to do with DC rally logisitics
more...
tikka
08-10 11:00 AM
bump
any CT members coming along with you.. ?
any CT members coming along with you.. ?
hot wallpaper pink abstract. pink
chanduv23
09-16 03:01 PM
Well...This is called "Heights" or "Crossing the limits". Now come on...a friend who has helped u a lot in the past, but cannot(or will not) make it to DC for whatever reasons, u r gonna cut ur relationship with him??? Either u r mean or u dont respect ur friend's decision. Different ppl have different perspectives and one shud respect that rather than cutting off valuable relationships by being narrow minded and expect others to follow what he/she is doing. Else they'll be loners all their lives.
These people are lazy, selfish cowards - they don't have guts to come forward and tell me "Hey, I just cannot come but I am supportive of the cause"
Yes - I know who helped and who did not - those who helped me in the past are supportive
So thanks for your advice - I know what I am doing here - and see you at the rally
These people are lazy, selfish cowards - they don't have guts to come forward and tell me "Hey, I just cannot come but I am supportive of the cause"
Yes - I know who helped and who did not - those who helped me in the past are supportive
So thanks for your advice - I know what I am doing here - and see you at the rally
more...
house utterfly wallpaper
walking_dude
11-25 12:16 PM
It may be the reason March was selected for the DC Rally, despite the cold weather so members have complained about. ( Note : I did not select the date).
If CIR is coming up in Spring, we need to make our case - by showing good numbers -by the end of winter ; freezing or not. If we don't do that our issue is very highly to get lost in the Border security, employer verification and Legalization/Amnesty. If we finish the public show of strength - DC Rally and the Lobby Day in March, we can be ready to send Web-faxes, make phone calls etc. in Spring to push for our bills.
During our lobby day and DC Rally efforts, we should get lawmakers to understand our issues and number of people impacted (0.5 million at the least). Once majority of the lawmakers understand that we exist in large numbers, and are facing these problems, they will be more sympathetic when we make those last minute phone calls and faxes.
If we don't do the DC Rally and Lobby day successfully, chances are lower that they may not be be sympathetic to us without understanding the issue and the large number of people impacted.
The clock has already started ticking. We have to act fast. If we do nothing, we will miss the boat once again. Will you help IV put Recapture and Visa increase on the upcoming CIR? If we don't, we all have wait several more years for the relief.
If CIR is coming up in Spring, we need to make our case - by showing good numbers -by the end of winter ; freezing or not. If we don't do that our issue is very highly to get lost in the Border security, employer verification and Legalization/Amnesty. If we finish the public show of strength - DC Rally and the Lobby Day in March, we can be ready to send Web-faxes, make phone calls etc. in Spring to push for our bills.
During our lobby day and DC Rally efforts, we should get lawmakers to understand our issues and number of people impacted (0.5 million at the least). Once majority of the lawmakers understand that we exist in large numbers, and are facing these problems, they will be more sympathetic when we make those last minute phone calls and faxes.
If we don't do the DC Rally and Lobby day successfully, chances are lower that they may not be be sympathetic to us without understanding the issue and the large number of people impacted.
The clock has already started ticking. We have to act fast. If we do nothing, we will miss the boat once again. Will you help IV put Recapture and Visa increase on the upcoming CIR? If we don't, we all have wait several more years for the relief.
tattoo free images of utterflies.
txh1b
08-18 02:48 PM
now this is weird... aside from the poster's main question: why does uscis want proof of *continuous employment* since the poster filed for 485? all they should care about is the future job... isnt that right? why do they want employment history?
willIWill, can you please post the exact wording on your RFE regarding that point?
It is not. It is very much relevant to the case as he has not added the spouse to the I485. If the person has not been continuously maintaining the non immigrant visa status, the spouse is out of status as the 485 has not been filed and is not eligible to hold H4 status.
Also, if the person has travelled on as a parolee, USCIS may be interested in that as well. You never know what the IO is getting into when they issue the RFE. Do not judge or give the OP a feeling that the RFE is irrelevant. It is, in many ways.
willIWill, can you please post the exact wording on your RFE regarding that point?
It is not. It is very much relevant to the case as he has not added the spouse to the I485. If the person has not been continuously maintaining the non immigrant visa status, the spouse is out of status as the 485 has not been filed and is not eligible to hold H4 status.
Also, if the person has travelled on as a parolee, USCIS may be interested in that as well. You never know what the IO is getting into when they issue the RFE. Do not judge or give the OP a feeling that the RFE is irrelevant. It is, in many ways.
more...
pictures Butterfly Pink and Purple
fide_champ
11-06 08:55 AM
Jet airways resumed new service to US recently. That's why you couldn't find many people traveling by Jet airways. I heard the flights are new, service is good and the travel is quite comfortable. I am travelling to chennai from EWR end of november and am looking forward to the trip.
dresses Damask Pink
waiting4gc02
01-09 02:05 PM
Guys:
I know it's a drag...but what the heck..!!!
What do you think..the dates are going to move too..!!!
I know it's a drag...but what the heck..!!!
What do you think..the dates are going to move too..!!!
more...
makeup pink butterfly wallpaper. Review. Screenshot
abandookwala63
03-31 07:41 PM
I am going to trnafer my H1 visa from company A to Combany B. I have EAD but my lawyer suggested me to have a backup of H1 visa. I am ith 8th year of H1 visa with the same company A. If my H1 gets denies can I go on EAD or i will be out of status.
girlfriend Tiger Butterfly wallpaper
zephyrr
03-20 11:56 PM
Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?
Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s I-485 has been pending 180
B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal
that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
I pulled this from the Aytes memo:http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Unless I'm not construing the above correctly, a withdrawl after 180 days has no impact. The only thing that would be a 'death-knell' is if an RFE is issued which the employer does not respond to.
withdrawl in that case would be death-knell to your AOS case..
there is theoretical opening for "approvable" 140 cases in yates memo, but it's more theory than practice, in the world wher USCIS is revoking approved 140s , one can't depend on such a slim glimmer of hope..
Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s I-485 has been pending 180
B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal
that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
I pulled this from the Aytes memo:http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Unless I'm not construing the above correctly, a withdrawl after 180 days has no impact. The only thing that would be a 'death-knell' is if an RFE is issued which the employer does not respond to.
withdrawl in that case would be death-knell to your AOS case..
there is theoretical opening for "approvable" 140 cases in yates memo, but it's more theory than practice, in the world wher USCIS is revoking approved 140s , one can't depend on such a slim glimmer of hope..
hairstyles Pink Butterfly Blackberry Tour
anilsal
09-15 09:55 PM
No place for you, if you are neither.:D
rockyrock
07-28 09:53 AM
My thinking is that this mad rush of dates being current, should not have much effect on the retrogression in Oct 07, because either way most of us will get green cards only after date becomes current....granted we'll get EAD and AP.....Since last retrogression for EB-2 was April 04, my guess is going to be somewhere like Jan 04.........Please share ur thoughts....
rsayed
08-22 11:25 AM
i APPLIED ON 7th July...
NO news
I applied on 7th July too - Receipt Date - 8th July - Notice Date - 9th July, 2008.
Paper-filed through my firm's lawyer - nothing so far!
Tried calling USCIS a few times - don't know whom to beleive - once, I was told an IO has not been assigned to my case. The other two times, they said, they're processing cases filed before April 2008 and I'll have to wait another 82-90 days!!!
Which doesn't sound true - coz' I know friends who filed in June/Jul - who got their approvals.
So, I'm compelled to logically arrive at one conclusion - USCIS is in a mess...through and through!!!
It's like the BLACK HOLE - No one knows what goes on in there - once, your app is in - only a miracle can get it out...
Sorry - just venting my frustrations...think I should go jog and drain myself silly...!!! :mad:
NO news
I applied on 7th July too - Receipt Date - 8th July - Notice Date - 9th July, 2008.
Paper-filed through my firm's lawyer - nothing so far!
Tried calling USCIS a few times - don't know whom to beleive - once, I was told an IO has not been assigned to my case. The other two times, they said, they're processing cases filed before April 2008 and I'll have to wait another 82-90 days!!!
Which doesn't sound true - coz' I know friends who filed in June/Jul - who got their approvals.
So, I'm compelled to logically arrive at one conclusion - USCIS is in a mess...through and through!!!
It's like the BLACK HOLE - No one knows what goes on in there - once, your app is in - only a miracle can get it out...
Sorry - just venting my frustrations...think I should go jog and drain myself silly...!!! :mad:
No comments:
Post a Comment