smarth
02-01 09:42 AM
congratulations...
We r sill waiting for GC, no idea when I will give message "Received GC"...:-)
We r sill waiting for GC, no idea when I will give message "Received GC"...:-)
wallpaper I would like my hair black,
lifestrikes
02-11 10:06 AM
..
Legislation is being prepared by U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that would make it easier to get permanent residency or Green Cards for advance degree graduates. Lofgren, who represents Silicon Valley, has not introduced her proposal, but she is a veteran of immigration issues.
Previous efforts by Lofgren have attempted to make it easier for foreign students who earn advance degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the so-called STEM degrees, to remain in the U.S. Her latest proposal is broader.
Among the things Lofgren may seek to accomplish in this bill is to create a new Green Card category for advanced degree graduates with STEM degrees, and to enable employers to file immigrant petitions for any of these students, eliminating the need for an H-1B visa for these employers. Out of the 85,000 H-1B visas allowed each year, 20,000 are set aside for STEM graduates.
U.S. Rep Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) introduced something similar last month. But Lofgren's proposal may go further by seeking protections for U.S. workers by barring their displacement by an H-1B worker, a move that may be aimed at firms that primarily deliver offshore services.
Link (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9208961/Top_H_1B_visa_user_of_2010_An_Indian_firm)
Legislation is being prepared by U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that would make it easier to get permanent residency or Green Cards for advance degree graduates. Lofgren, who represents Silicon Valley, has not introduced her proposal, but she is a veteran of immigration issues.
Previous efforts by Lofgren have attempted to make it easier for foreign students who earn advance degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the so-called STEM degrees, to remain in the U.S. Her latest proposal is broader.
Among the things Lofgren may seek to accomplish in this bill is to create a new Green Card category for advanced degree graduates with STEM degrees, and to enable employers to file immigrant petitions for any of these students, eliminating the need for an H-1B visa for these employers. Out of the 85,000 H-1B visas allowed each year, 20,000 are set aside for STEM graduates.
U.S. Rep Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) introduced something similar last month. But Lofgren's proposal may go further by seeking protections for U.S. workers by barring their displacement by an H-1B worker, a move that may be aimed at firms that primarily deliver offshore services.
Link (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9208961/Top_H_1B_visa_user_of_2010_An_Indian_firm)
santosh_guha
07-14 06:28 PM
I'm ready to join the Texas Chapter. I reside in Houston.
2011 With Hair Like This? by
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
gevgelija50
02-27 02:39 PM
So applications from India are in first place with over 300% more applications than the second place? Wow
abhijitp
01-26 05:42 PM
^^
more...
karthiknv143
06-01 05:13 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2010 colour is hair black blue
we_can
01-29 04:49 PM
i just noticed your post. i am from portland, oregon. so count me in also. i had posted a message on the orgon state chapter a while ago and have not had a single response yet. Inspite of the large numbers of members in seattle and portland areas, i too am sad to this kind of inactivity and non-response.
members from northwest (oregon, washington and idaho): This state chapter initiative is very important for our efforts. We are doing this for ourselves and I am pretty sure that these efforts will not harm your career or work in anyway. So, please do reply so that we could all get active and show that we in the Northwest can work for our situations and for iv's efforts in our own way.
we_can
members from northwest (oregon, washington and idaho): This state chapter initiative is very important for our efforts. We are doing this for ourselves and I am pretty sure that these efforts will not harm your career or work in anyway. So, please do reply so that we could all get active and show that we in the Northwest can work for our situations and for iv's efforts in our own way.
we_can
more...
NKR
09-22 09:00 AM
Thats what GC means to me.
On the other hand...Its just the current state of mind...
You are asking 'What is GC, is it worth it?'. But you don't ask the same thing about other things...like 'What is Money, is it worth it?' !! 'What is family, is it worth it?'
But people do enter a state of mind, where other things become more important to them than what is important to you or me (like money, family....GC etc).
.
Dude, Your PD is in early 2001 and you are so calm and composed?. I am amazed with your �current state of mind�. I hope you get your GC soon.
On the other hand...Its just the current state of mind...
You are asking 'What is GC, is it worth it?'. But you don't ask the same thing about other things...like 'What is Money, is it worth it?' !! 'What is family, is it worth it?'
But people do enter a state of mind, where other things become more important to them than what is important to you or me (like money, family....GC etc).
.
Dude, Your PD is in early 2001 and you are so calm and composed?. I am amazed with your �current state of mind�. I hope you get your GC soon.
hair Superman Hair Gel by weRsNs
desi3933
05-14 01:33 PM
H-1B is approved from Oct/1/2009. Currently I should be on L-1B. As per this article, I think I can travel without jeopardizing my future status. They call it the 'Hernandez letter'. Is this true?
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cosapp.html
Thanks..
Well, you didn't mention in your original post that COS date is 01/10/2009 and I assumed that COS date was date of approval.
In this case, yes your H1 COS is approved with deferred change of status date of Oct 1st. And Hernandez Letter does cover such scenario.
However, please keep this mind (mentioned in that link)
This analysis was provided by the USCIS in the form of letter guidance. Such guidance does not carry the binding force of law or regulation and generally is given less weight than even a USCIS policy memo.
Since when you come back you will have different I-94 number as compare to I-94 number on COS approval letter. This can cause explanation/issues down the line. Please consult your attorney and have professional advice.
Hernandez Letter does not have binding force of law. This is something difficult to ignore for me. But, that's just me.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cosapp.html
Thanks..
Well, you didn't mention in your original post that COS date is 01/10/2009 and I assumed that COS date was date of approval.
In this case, yes your H1 COS is approved with deferred change of status date of Oct 1st. And Hernandez Letter does cover such scenario.
However, please keep this mind (mentioned in that link)
This analysis was provided by the USCIS in the form of letter guidance. Such guidance does not carry the binding force of law or regulation and generally is given less weight than even a USCIS policy memo.
Since when you come back you will have different I-94 number as compare to I-94 number on COS approval letter. This can cause explanation/issues down the line. Please consult your attorney and have professional advice.
Hernandez Letter does not have binding force of law. This is something difficult to ignore for me. But, that's just me.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
more...
ksiddaba
07-14 06:40 PM
Dallas, TX
hot lack things, lue hair
GCBy3000
08-24 11:32 AM
I dont think people who are affected by retrogression are living life with some principles. If they are in this situation, itis because of their own decisions. Again as redcard said, coming here on F1 is for study and not for GC. Coming here in H1B is for work and not soley for GC. May be the individual knows in advance there is possibility of getting one.
Doing MS or PhD, you could very well do in your home country. Why did you choose US on first place. I have seen people who are unable to get H1b, getting F1 and coming to US. By the way I am not blaming all F1's here. . By doing MS or PhD, your original intention of coming to US is well achieved. Then if you decide to go into H1, then you join the people who are here in H1 irrespective of their degrees. Intention of H1 is to work and sometimes even to apply for GC. So cribbing too much on having a MS is not good.
I bet there will be a huge number of people if given an opportunity to get pre-approved labor, they will get it somehow. You and I did not come across one.
Stop crying.. no one forced you to come here to study.. you came by choice like the other people who came here to work on H1... you decided to stay here for working, again no one forced you ... you decided to apply for GC again no one forced you... you decided to join a good company who would not substitute a labor .. again no once forced you... you had options like all the other people who came here on BS or whatever degree.. maybe you made the wrong move when it came to GC and the other people made a smarter move.. so don't cry on that.. if you wish to cry .. cry for the labor substitution rule.. it will help
Doing MS or PhD, you could very well do in your home country. Why did you choose US on first place. I have seen people who are unable to get H1b, getting F1 and coming to US. By the way I am not blaming all F1's here. . By doing MS or PhD, your original intention of coming to US is well achieved. Then if you decide to go into H1, then you join the people who are here in H1 irrespective of their degrees. Intention of H1 is to work and sometimes even to apply for GC. So cribbing too much on having a MS is not good.
I bet there will be a huge number of people if given an opportunity to get pre-approved labor, they will get it somehow. You and I did not come across one.
Stop crying.. no one forced you to come here to study.. you came by choice like the other people who came here to work on H1... you decided to stay here for working, again no one forced you ... you decided to apply for GC again no one forced you... you decided to join a good company who would not substitute a labor .. again no once forced you... you had options like all the other people who came here on BS or whatever degree.. maybe you made the wrong move when it came to GC and the other people made a smarter move.. so don't cry on that.. if you wish to cry .. cry for the labor substitution rule.. it will help
more...
house lack hair and lue eyes
Libra
10-12 10:22 AM
LUD 10/03/06 before getting RFE, after submitting RFE documents there were two LUD's 10/04/07 and 10/05/07.
Naresh/Libra,
What was the LUD on your I-140 before you got the RFE ?
In my case, the RD is 10/06 and LUD is 10/26/2006. But, no updates after that.
gxr
Naresh/Libra,
What was the LUD on your I-140 before you got the RFE ?
In my case, the RD is 10/06 and LUD is 10/26/2006. But, no updates after that.
gxr
tattoo With Black Wooden Beads
psam
12-15 08:49 PM
I am the same boat. My wife got her card wheras I got a response to the SR we raised that my card was sent the same day as my 485 approval notice and it might been lost in mail. I was asked to file I-90. I called customer service several times and talked to 2nd level IO and all suggested to file I-90. I took infopass but gave a shot again by talking to 2nd level IO who went over my case and said that my card was never created so she raised a SR.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
I had same experience. Various customer service rep told me that my card was indeed sent. I think they go by email notications or by status changes to our I-485 application. It goes through "Card Production Ordered" and "Post decision activity" even when there is problem with card production. Its only when they look in some other system, they find that there was a problem with card production.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
I had same experience. Various customer service rep told me that my card was indeed sent. I think they go by email notications or by status changes to our I-485 application. It goes through "Card Production Ordered" and "Post decision activity" even when there is problem with card production. Its only when they look in some other system, they find that there was a problem with card production.
more...
pictures 2 Grooms (Brown Hair and Black
kumarc123
02-11 10:52 AM
Looks like the news is out on this in media.
Immigration Voice has been aware of this and actively working on it for last 3 weeks. This had been also posted on the donor forums. Core members and several key IV volunteers/ donors already have been working on it and analyzing it. We also had been asked for our recommendations and had send our recommendations. We should see this bill introduced soon in a few days.
Thank you for your input Pappu and we appreciate your diligence in the efforts to IV. However the question is: will this bill have the potential to move forward?
As I last recall, Zoe Lofgreen had tried a similar bill 3 years ago (2008) that would have eliminated visa backlog, but we all know that bill went no where.
At this point in time, does this bill have the potential to bring aboard the change we all are seeking for so long? I hope it does. As this journey has been quiet long and tedious.
Thank you
Immigration Voice has been aware of this and actively working on it for last 3 weeks. This had been also posted on the donor forums. Core members and several key IV volunteers/ donors already have been working on it and analyzing it. We also had been asked for our recommendations and had send our recommendations. We should see this bill introduced soon in a few days.
Thank you for your input Pappu and we appreciate your diligence in the efforts to IV. However the question is: will this bill have the potential to move forward?
As I last recall, Zoe Lofgreen had tried a similar bill 3 years ago (2008) that would have eliminated visa backlog, but we all know that bill went no where.
At this point in time, does this bill have the potential to bring aboard the change we all are seeking for so long? I hope it does. As this journey has been quiet long and tedious.
Thank you
dresses Lavender and Light Blue
Rb_newsletter
07-13 05:31 PM
I am in similar situation but in GC process. My ex-colleagues are afraid to write experience letter for me.
Some colleagues who are still working in the same company doesn't want the company to know about the letter. They are afraid that company would take action if USCIS contacts the company to verify the letter.
Some colleagues who are out of the company are concerned about USCIS process. Basically they don't want to involve in any queries/RFEs from USCIS.
Some colleagues who are still working in the same company doesn't want the company to know about the letter. They are afraid that company would take action if USCIS contacts the company to verify the letter.
Some colleagues who are out of the company are concerned about USCIS process. Basically they don't want to involve in any queries/RFEs from USCIS.
more...
makeup lue eyes dye hair black
syedajmal
09-20 08:28 PM
When I put in my application for a 7th year extension based on the fact that my labor was pending for more than a year, I did get a 3 year extension. My company lawyer applied again requesting a one year extension and I recently got it approved.
I believe the assumption from his side was that even though the labor was approved for 3 year it is upto us to get it corrected. Hope this helps. But I believe this would be a good question for one of those conference calls.
I believe the assumption from his side was that even though the labor was approved for 3 year it is upto us to get it corrected. Hope this helps. But I believe this would be a good question for one of those conference calls.
girlfriend Pale skin+Black hair+Blue eyez
wellwishergc
06-13 03:33 PM
I agree with Raydhan!!
Forget the visa bulletin, GCs, etc for a month and enjoy your team crushing every other team for the next one month.
Go Brazil!!!:) Go Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Roberto, Kaka!!!
camberiu,
Let's forget about the visa numbers. My P.D. is Jan'02 (EB3-India :( )and I am not expecting any movement significant movement for the next 4-6 months.
Atleast you can expect some good news in the World Cup on July 9th. Hope to see Cafu lift Brazil's 6th Cup.
You better log off and watch Brazil-Croatia in 10 minutes.
Forget the visa bulletin, GCs, etc for a month and enjoy your team crushing every other team for the next one month.
Go Brazil!!!:) Go Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Roberto, Kaka!!!
camberiu,
Let's forget about the visa numbers. My P.D. is Jan'02 (EB3-India :( )and I am not expecting any movement significant movement for the next 4-6 months.
Atleast you can expect some good news in the World Cup on July 9th. Hope to see Cafu lift Brazil's 6th Cup.
You better log off and watch Brazil-Croatia in 10 minutes.
hairstyles lack and electric lue hair.
Ramg
04-09 09:54 PM
Dear All,
We have applied for our 485 in August 07 with myself as Primary applicant and my wife as dependent. My wife later got her H1B in october but we haven't updated her status as H1b to USCIS in the 485 processing. Recently we moved to a new place and wanted to change the address online. I suppose I and my wife have to fill the Ar-11 form individually. When trying to fill for my wife, I got some questions.
Please clarify:
1. I am in the United States as a ___ (Should this blank be filled with H4 or H1B for my wife? If I say H1b will there be any problem as I added her to my GC process as a H4. Also, should her employer details be given in the form?
2. Copy number from Alien card? Is this the I-94 number or passport number or alien number on the finger printing sheet?
3. If not a permanent resident, my stay in US expires on ____ (Should this be the same date as her H1B end date?)
I really appreciate any help on these questions at the earliest. It will be 10th day tomm. after moving into new place and I just noticed that the form ar-11 says that USCIS must be notified of address change within 10 days of moving.
Please help me clarify these questions.
Thank you,
Ramg
We have applied for our 485 in August 07 with myself as Primary applicant and my wife as dependent. My wife later got her H1B in october but we haven't updated her status as H1b to USCIS in the 485 processing. Recently we moved to a new place and wanted to change the address online. I suppose I and my wife have to fill the Ar-11 form individually. When trying to fill for my wife, I got some questions.
Please clarify:
1. I am in the United States as a ___ (Should this blank be filled with H4 or H1B for my wife? If I say H1b will there be any problem as I added her to my GC process as a H4. Also, should her employer details be given in the form?
2. Copy number from Alien card? Is this the I-94 number or passport number or alien number on the finger printing sheet?
3. If not a permanent resident, my stay in US expires on ____ (Should this be the same date as her H1B end date?)
I really appreciate any help on these questions at the earliest. It will be 10th day tomm. after moving into new place and I just noticed that the form ar-11 says that USCIS must be notified of address change within 10 days of moving.
Please help me clarify these questions.
Thank you,
Ramg
FinalGC
04-01 11:16 AM
You are technically getting into the EAD track and not H1 track. There will not be any issues during adjudication, however make sure the new W2 work using EAD is similar to your job profile defined in the LC.
The only problem that may come(worst case scenario) is that if ever there is a mess up by USCIS on your case or your records are incorrect or if your case is rejected.....then you could become illegal, since u r on EAD. However, being in H1 and working for the desi consulting company...would be the safest bet, until you cross the GC bridge
The only problem that may come(worst case scenario) is that if ever there is a mess up by USCIS on your case or your records are incorrect or if your case is rejected.....then you could become illegal, since u r on EAD. However, being in H1 and working for the desi consulting company...would be the safest bet, until you cross the GC bridge
VivekAhuja
12-12 05:49 PM
Hi!
I have an approved H1 until 2009 but expired visa in my passport. I have AP and EAD approved. My lawyer has the original I-485 receipt notice - I only have a fax of it. I am travelling to India in Jan-08.
I am planning to re-enter the USA on AP. Do I need original I-485 receipt to re-enter? OR is AP documents enough? Do I need to carry approved H1-B notice or any other docs?
Thanks for your help!
Vivek.
I have an approved H1 until 2009 but expired visa in my passport. I have AP and EAD approved. My lawyer has the original I-485 receipt notice - I only have a fax of it. I am travelling to India in Jan-08.
I am planning to re-enter the USA on AP. Do I need original I-485 receipt to re-enter? OR is AP documents enough? Do I need to carry approved H1-B notice or any other docs?
Thanks for your help!
Vivek.
No comments:
Post a Comment