pash02
05-26 11:37 AM
Thanks to IV core members, QGA, senators and their staff.
Kudos to Immigration Voice!
Kudos to Immigration Voice!
wallpaper really funny quotes images.
like_watching_paint_dry
02-27 01:51 PM
I don't have any examples of a NOIR based on EB green card holder changing jobs too soon after 485 approval. I however have seen counter examples where a person changed jobs within a month of 485 approval and never had any problems at N-400 as long as they have maintained a good employment history, paid taxes, not committed any crime etc.
This is not to say that you or I or some other Joe wont have any issues, but is a hopeful indicator. It is however best to play it safe unless there's a pretty darn good reason to take up a job change soon after 485 approval.
This is not to say that you or I or some other Joe wont have any issues, but is a hopeful indicator. It is however best to play it safe unless there's a pretty darn good reason to take up a job change soon after 485 approval.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
2011 Free 1000 Funny Quotes !
dreamworld
11-30 03:08 PM
Hi All,
I and My wife were applied 485 in July 2007. We have received receipt numbers, EAD's and Advance Paroles. In online my wife 485 status showing as approved, but we did not receive any letters from USCIS. When we called USCIS about this, some of the IO officers are saying they don't know why the Card production ordered was not happened and they will send a request to supervisor. But some of the IO officers are saying instead of approving 131,they approved 485 and it is a mistake. Even though if they are saying mistake, they are not changing the online message or when we call them getting different messages from USCIS until today...Gurus please advise what we need to do.
Thanks.
What is the birth country of your wife????. If she is not born in India then her PD is current...
I and My wife were applied 485 in July 2007. We have received receipt numbers, EAD's and Advance Paroles. In online my wife 485 status showing as approved, but we did not receive any letters from USCIS. When we called USCIS about this, some of the IO officers are saying they don't know why the Card production ordered was not happened and they will send a request to supervisor. But some of the IO officers are saying instead of approving 131,they approved 485 and it is a mistake. Even though if they are saying mistake, they are not changing the online message or when we call them getting different messages from USCIS until today...Gurus please advise what we need to do.
Thanks.
What is the birth country of your wife????. If she is not born in India then her PD is current...
more...
BrickWall
03-12 09:49 PM
You cannot become a Canadian Citizen, just because you are on H1 in the US. The only advantage is you can apply for Permanent Residency from the US, which is much faster than applying from India. Once, you get your Green Card, you still should maintain residency in Canda, before you apply for Citizenship.
Ria, You can apply for Canadian Permanent Residency by urself. You dont need to hire people to do it. I did it by myself, and it is very easy.
Hi..
I am working in US from last 4yrs and applying for canadian immig. What if I have applied it through NYC Buffalo but by the time they are finished processing (lets say 2 hrs from now), I had to move to India (coz i din't get my GC from here or any other reason). Can I go to consulate in India or do I have to come here for interview? how would that work?
Thank you in advance..
Ria, You can apply for Canadian Permanent Residency by urself. You dont need to hire people to do it. I did it by myself, and it is very easy.
Hi..
I am working in US from last 4yrs and applying for canadian immig. What if I have applied it through NYC Buffalo but by the time they are finished processing (lets say 2 hrs from now), I had to move to India (coz i din't get my GC from here or any other reason). Can I go to consulate in India or do I have to come here for interview? how would that work?
Thank you in advance..
Queen Josephine
June 19th, 2005, 08:53 PM
It is out and installed. I loaded up the rainbow picture, did an adjustment layer, but don't seem to be making changes that really improve the shot. I'll try some more later, but I have to go, the sun is about to rise :)
If you get frustrated with it, drop a note. I actually did the rainbow pic this am before I left the house.... took screen shots while doing it and made a pdf file for you. I just haven't had time to get it up on my website yet though. Maybe tomorrow!
If you get frustrated with it, drop a note. I actually did the rainbow pic this am before I left the house.... took screen shots while doing it and made a pdf file for you. I just haven't had time to get it up on my website yet though. Maybe tomorrow!
more...
letstalklc
11-24 03:47 PM
I just started using SBI global and I am happy with their services. One question though. I am sending money to my own account. I know we have to declare the accounts more than 10K. Is the interest earned on that money taxable in US ? Another question is , since we are here is that money taxable in India also ? If yes, how do we manage our indian taxes while living here(tax returns etc). Any help would be great.
I have SBI NRI account (You can only transfer USD, not sure about other currencies, but for sure you can't deposit India Rupees), for this account you dont need to pay any tax in India, whatever you transfer from here are alredy taxed, so dont worry, even you dont need to pay the tax on the earned interest from ur NRI account.
Please note that there is one more accout type exist for NRI, this account will allowed to deposit indian rupees, but you have to file taxes for the earned interest/income.
I have SBI NRI account (You can only transfer USD, not sure about other currencies, but for sure you can't deposit India Rupees), for this account you dont need to pay any tax in India, whatever you transfer from here are alredy taxed, so dont worry, even you dont need to pay the tax on the earned interest from ur NRI account.
Please note that there is one more accout type exist for NRI, this account will allowed to deposit indian rupees, but you have to file taxes for the earned interest/income.
2010 funny quotes with picture.
bheemi
08-30 12:52 PM
As per my understanding, you should not try to travel outside USA when extension application is pending. Because you will be issued with old I-94 no when you apply for extenstion. Your h1b extention approval petetion contains same I-94 no. Now if you travel before it is approved, you wil have a different I-94 issues t port of entry and it does nto amtch your I-94 which is in extension approval.
Then when you apply for green card or further extensions you will face problems because of mismathcn in I-94 nos..This is my understanding..
Then when you apply for green card or further extensions you will face problems because of mismathcn in I-94 nos..This is my understanding..
more...
go_guy123
09-10 03:36 PM
If person is working for same company after MS then he/she cannot use experience for GC for same company. One of my friend got GC who was working for same company since he graduated and got GC under EB2. He had 4 years of exp after MS when he applied but could not show
Its not a major issue since MS itself is viewed as 5 years of experience. The question is whether the company and DOL is willing to accept business necessity clause for Masters/5 years experience. By default most occupation fall into Job Zone 4 (EB3) unless shown business necessity and proved during an Audit.
Doctors, Lawyers etc fall into Job Zone 5 (EB2)
Its not a major issue since MS itself is viewed as 5 years of experience. The question is whether the company and DOL is willing to accept business necessity clause for Masters/5 years experience. By default most occupation fall into Job Zone 4 (EB3) unless shown business necessity and proved during an Audit.
Doctors, Lawyers etc fall into Job Zone 5 (EB2)
hair Sassy Sayings and FUNNY QUOTES
immi_grant
06-25 02:10 PM
Thanks for the response !!
This client is a direct client to my company and there are no middle layers or vendors. So like you said if I can get an email from the client that they can't give me the letter via their corporate email would work ? Would this suffice to open a MTR ?
Thanks in advance.
This client is a direct client to my company and there are no middle layers or vendors. So like you said if I can get an email from the client that they can't give me the letter via their corporate email would work ? Would this suffice to open a MTR ?
Thanks in advance.
more...
anurakt
01-03 11:12 AM
I think we should give an option for more than $100 too i.e. a blank field with a validation that it cannot be less than 20$. Also instructions should be given on how to cancel the monthly subscription. Also it should be agreed by the patrcipant that he won't ask for money back and in case he does that we should be putting rules around it such as administrative fees. This would make sure that the fees IV pays to paypal for transactions is taken care of.
My suggestions , doesn' mean that these needs to be implemented , also all those who sign of monthly with proven monthly of minimun 50$ should only be allowed to get into members only forum threads etc etc...again $50 is an example....
My suggestions , doesn' mean that these needs to be implemented , also all those who sign of monthly with proven monthly of minimun 50$ should only be allowed to get into members only forum threads etc etc...again $50 is an example....
hot funny quotes on life images.
coopheal
04-12 03:01 PM
Gurus, I just got an email about RFE on 485 application for both of us (myself and wife). My PD is Sep 2006, EB2, not sure why the application got opened and whats the RFE about. I am still working on h1 (renewed based on approved 140) and still has 1.5 years left. Is someone on the same boat, i mean RFE's on 485 though PD is not current??? If the RFE is about my employment, would my wife also get the RFE ?? I am with the same employer from almost 6 years.Do i get the copy of RFE too or just the attorney?? Thanks Guys, appreciate your help ....
Don't worry much its more than like going to be a medical RFE.
I had an RFE recently with similar status. See thread....
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24601
Don't worry much its more than like going to be a medical RFE.
I had an RFE recently with similar status. See thread....
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24601
more...
house Funny Quotes for you
dealsnet
10-21 08:26 PM
File new H1B.
You may not adjust the status. (B1 to H1). (Get the H1B approval without 1-94 attached)
You need to go to India and attend interview to get your visa stamped.
Do premium process to save time.
So you will be safe. Everything can be done within 45 days, if do PP and move fast.
Entry on H1B will be safe for future immigration matters.
Dear friends,
I entered to US on 5th October 2009 on B1 visa and at POE I was given 3 months duration to stay.
I came here to write physical therapy licensing exam on 8th OCT (same is mentioned as an annotation on my B1 visa) and now I passed the exam and licensed.
Now a hospital is ready to file a H1B work visa for me through premium processing and they want me to start working for them immediately after the approval of H1B.
Other relevant past details are
H1B non cap petition- June 2008
221 g at the consulate for the H1B petition since I didn't had the license.
Hospital withdrew the H1B petition in August 2008.
Dear friends, kindly let me know whether its safe to change the status within 15 days of my entry(its a different hospital). And if not how many days should I delay the filing of H1B. I would like to change the status here without going back to my country for H1B.
And also whether this will have any future adverse effect when I file the immigrant petition. Thank you very much for your valuable advise in advance.John
You may not adjust the status. (B1 to H1). (Get the H1B approval without 1-94 attached)
You need to go to India and attend interview to get your visa stamped.
Do premium process to save time.
So you will be safe. Everything can be done within 45 days, if do PP and move fast.
Entry on H1B will be safe for future immigration matters.
Dear friends,
I entered to US on 5th October 2009 on B1 visa and at POE I was given 3 months duration to stay.
I came here to write physical therapy licensing exam on 8th OCT (same is mentioned as an annotation on my B1 visa) and now I passed the exam and licensed.
Now a hospital is ready to file a H1B work visa for me through premium processing and they want me to start working for them immediately after the approval of H1B.
Other relevant past details are
H1B non cap petition- June 2008
221 g at the consulate for the H1B petition since I didn't had the license.
Hospital withdrew the H1B petition in August 2008.
Dear friends, kindly let me know whether its safe to change the status within 15 days of my entry(its a different hospital). And if not how many days should I delay the filing of H1B. I would like to change the status here without going back to my country for H1B.
And also whether this will have any future adverse effect when I file the immigrant petition. Thank you very much for your valuable advise in advance.John
tattoo quotes
eagerr2i
08-30 01:03 PM
A clarification to the questions raised, you may book a ticket for a friend or a relative using your airlines miles. I have done that for some of my relatives and friends on a few instances in the recent past. Hence, there is no need to transfer miles to the individual traveling.
You may not sell the miles in any form.
You may not sell the miles in any form.
more...
pictures Funny Quotes amp; Sayings
Rb_newsletter
04-15 05:20 PM
The person I know who got GC before the PD was current, debated for sometime asked his lawyer etc... but it was whoever's mistake, they have got to honor it... he decided to keep the GC act dumb and njoy life.:D.. by the way even if you get a GC when PD is current they reserve the right to revoke... check with lawyer and decide for yourself !!!
Does anyone know which law states that GC should not be approved when PD is not current? I guess the whole 'PD' concept was invented by administration people.
Does anyone know which law states that GC should not be approved when PD is not current? I guess the whole 'PD' concept was invented by administration people.
dresses funny quotes and sayings
vin13
01-15 03:40 PM
I agree.
Visa Recapture or remove country limit for skilled labor (EB category). these would probably be the only ones that will fly.
Maybe they should also keep it low key so less people oppose it;)
Send it through when Mr.King is on vacation:D
Visa Recapture or remove country limit for skilled labor (EB category). these would probably be the only ones that will fly.
Maybe they should also keep it low key so less people oppose it;)
Send it through when Mr.King is on vacation:D
more...
makeup Valentine#39;s Day Funny Quotes
camphor
09-11 08:54 PM
Thanks guys for your responses.
My AOS application was filed on July 1st by my lawyer. On the receipts,
the received date for 485, EAD & AP is July 2nd whereas the Notice Date is Aug 31. 485 application was transferred to Lincoln, NE (NSC) and EAD & AP are processed by CSC (California). Hope this helps.
My AOS application was filed on July 1st by my lawyer. On the receipts,
the received date for 485, EAD & AP is July 2nd whereas the Notice Date is Aug 31. 485 application was transferred to Lincoln, NE (NSC) and EAD & AP are processed by CSC (California). Hope this helps.
girlfriend Funny Quotes About Life #1
satishku_2000
01-07 07:05 PM
Employers can withdraw the 140 , It could result in NOID for 485 . Please be prepared to respond to NOID.
By law you may be in safe area but please be prepared with all the required documents to respond a potential NOID.
By law you may be in safe area but please be prepared with all the required documents to respond a potential NOID.
hairstyles funny quotes
gman
07-29 09:55 PM
Safer way is to get legally married before GC gets approved. You can file her I-485 when she comes to the US.
gsvisu
07-13 06:51 AM
Moral : Play Soccer
Leave Doctor, Software, Engineering professions... & play soccer.
Leave Doctor, Software, Engineering professions... & play soccer.
Ramba
10-05 03:57 PM
Hello all,
I haven't got my question answered by any other posts, so creating a new thread.
I have a 3-year degree in Biology from India, and two computer certifications from CMC Ltd and CDAC (1.5 years total). Then I worked as a software engineer in India full-time for 2.5 years. I arrived in the U.S. after that and worked for a software company full-time for about 6 months. Then I decided to go back and get another degree from a school in California. I worked as a computer science tutor part-time (20 hrs/wk) for 1.5 years while attending school and also worked as a software engineer part-time (20 hrs/wk) on a U.S. military sub-contract project for 2 years. I graduated with a 4-year degree in computer science from Cal Poly, SLO, a CA state university with a GPA of 3.4. Then I worked at Microsoft Corp full-time for a year. Now I am back in CA working for a software company for the last 5 months. My current company just started my green card process.
If I count 2 years of part-time experience as 1 year of full-time experience then I have 5+ years of relevant work experience. But my attorney says that part-time experience won't count much, and since I don't have a 4-year degree before I started working on my first job they can't file me on EB2. But Cal Poly considered me as a second baccalaureate student, and the attorney is saying that it is not good enough. I have got my degree evaluated for professional and academic purposes, and they both recognize my first degree. The professional agency says that I have a degree + minor in CS before I got by CS degree from the U.S. I also have recommendation letters from my previous employers recommending me for full-time leadership positions and sorts.
Wouldn't USCIS recognize these facts and consider me for an EB2 candidate rather than EB3? I never left my specialized field in CS, and that has to count for something, correct? I am able to show progress since I started working on my first job. 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?
Thank you all in advance for your expert comments and immense help.
Sincerely,
Sujit
Your Attorney is perfectly right. You must have a 5 years of post-bachelors (4 year degree) progressive experience to file a EB2 petition. Your first BS degree in biology will not qualify for a US equivalent BS degree. So, you left with no option other than your other US BS degree for eduction requirement. If you have 5 years full time experience after the completion of the second BS degree, then only you are eligible for EB2. This is must. Even if you have 20 years of experience in computer field before your qualifying US equivalent BS degree, you are not eligible for EB2. USCIS so particular about this, they do not consider what your university has considered your first degree.
I haven't got my question answered by any other posts, so creating a new thread.
I have a 3-year degree in Biology from India, and two computer certifications from CMC Ltd and CDAC (1.5 years total). Then I worked as a software engineer in India full-time for 2.5 years. I arrived in the U.S. after that and worked for a software company full-time for about 6 months. Then I decided to go back and get another degree from a school in California. I worked as a computer science tutor part-time (20 hrs/wk) for 1.5 years while attending school and also worked as a software engineer part-time (20 hrs/wk) on a U.S. military sub-contract project for 2 years. I graduated with a 4-year degree in computer science from Cal Poly, SLO, a CA state university with a GPA of 3.4. Then I worked at Microsoft Corp full-time for a year. Now I am back in CA working for a software company for the last 5 months. My current company just started my green card process.
If I count 2 years of part-time experience as 1 year of full-time experience then I have 5+ years of relevant work experience. But my attorney says that part-time experience won't count much, and since I don't have a 4-year degree before I started working on my first job they can't file me on EB2. But Cal Poly considered me as a second baccalaureate student, and the attorney is saying that it is not good enough. I have got my degree evaluated for professional and academic purposes, and they both recognize my first degree. The professional agency says that I have a degree + minor in CS before I got by CS degree from the U.S. I also have recommendation letters from my previous employers recommending me for full-time leadership positions and sorts.
Wouldn't USCIS recognize these facts and consider me for an EB2 candidate rather than EB3? I never left my specialized field in CS, and that has to count for something, correct? I am able to show progress since I started working on my first job. 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?
Thank you all in advance for your expert comments and immense help.
Sincerely,
Sujit
Your Attorney is perfectly right. You must have a 5 years of post-bachelors (4 year degree) progressive experience to file a EB2 petition. Your first BS degree in biology will not qualify for a US equivalent BS degree. So, you left with no option other than your other US BS degree for eduction requirement. If you have 5 years full time experience after the completion of the second BS degree, then only you are eligible for EB2. This is must. Even if you have 20 years of experience in computer field before your qualifying US equivalent BS degree, you are not eligible for EB2. USCIS so particular about this, they do not consider what your university has considered your first degree.
0 comments:
Post a Comment