senthil1
07-05 01:13 AM
Actually it would have been greater mess if they would have allowed to file 500 to 700k persons if that number is correct. Mainly those who are missing the bus due to marriage and other reasons would have suffered a lot. PD date movement
should be as accurate as possible or gc number should be increased. Or if they allow to file everyone then processing of application should be based on PD.
should be as accurate as possible or gc number should be increased. Or if they allow to file everyone then processing of application should be based on PD.
linuxra
02-17 08:09 PM
currently iam working with vsginc they filed my greencard processing through different company axiom
i applied for 485 and iam past 180 days
i have never been on axiom payroll
can anybody tell me can i use ac21 portability ?
Thanks
i applied for 485 and iam past 180 days
i have never been on axiom payroll
can anybody tell me can i use ac21 portability ?
Thanks
waitingnwaiting
01-21 08:00 AM
I had an appointment at Mumbai Consulate on Jan 5th , 7th year ext. Since my I 797 approval date and stamping date was too short ( 1-2 weeks ) USCIS or DOS failed to update info in PIMS on time. I got yellow slip after few basic questions and told to wait for 2-3 biz days. I informed my lawyer in USA and he made contact to DOS there and ask them to update record. Also I had renewed my Indian passport since I applied for I 797 so they had old pp no in record. Lady from DOS promised to work on my case but didn't give any definite time limit.
but I got reply from Consulate on 4th biz day. Submitted passport via local VFS office and with in 3 days got it back. I think if you contact DOS it would take less time , otherwise 2-3 weeks is normal and 4 weeks or longer is for some rare cases. As long as your history is clean nothing to worry even it takes 3-4 weeks.
Whom did the lawyer contact in DOS. Did he tell you? It will help if we know.
but I got reply from Consulate on 4th biz day. Submitted passport via local VFS office and with in 3 days got it back. I think if you contact DOS it would take less time , otherwise 2-3 weeks is normal and 4 weeks or longer is for some rare cases. As long as your history is clean nothing to worry even it takes 3-4 weeks.
Whom did the lawyer contact in DOS. Did he tell you? It will help if we know.
pasupuleti
02-14 12:33 PM
That's great!!!
Who were "we?"
And is it possible to ask Honda's office to urge DOL to have some transparency about the process, so that people know what the heck is going on at the processing centers? Right now it's a total black box!
Thanks.
-L.
Who were "we?"
we are local representatives from immigration voice. We are doing meet the lawmakers drive in CA.
Yes, we will send a email to Mike Honda's office to stress on transparency about the blacklogs process in their letter to DOL.
Who were "we?"
And is it possible to ask Honda's office to urge DOL to have some transparency about the process, so that people know what the heck is going on at the processing centers? Right now it's a total black box!
Thanks.
-L.
Who were "we?"
we are local representatives from immigration voice. We are doing meet the lawmakers drive in CA.
Yes, we will send a email to Mike Honda's office to stress on transparency about the blacklogs process in their letter to DOL.
more...
h1-b forever
09-27 08:58 AM
Did this campaign start?
andy garcia
02-23 11:05 AM
Here is e.g. for 2002 again this excludes schedule A here is the breakdown for india
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 21K
EB3 - 17.5K
EB4 - 0.3K
EB5 - 0
EB Total - 41K
Am I missing something?
You are missing this:
The large number of LPRs in the EB in 2005 was primarily due to the AC21 Act of 2000, which recaptured 130,107 unused EB visa numbers from 1999 and 2000 to be made available to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd preference EB immigrants once the annual limit had been reached. Approximately 94,000 of those recaptured visa numbers were used in 2005. None of these visas were used in 2006. In addition, the REAL ID Act of 2005 recaptured 50,000 unused EB visas, 5,125 of which were used in 2005. In 2006, 33,341 of these visas were used, exceeding the 2006 employment preference limit of 143,949. The majority of the visa numbers recaptured by the REAL ID Act were issued to individuals whose country of origin was the Philippines (57 percent) or India (22 percent).
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 21K
EB3 - 17.5K
EB4 - 0.3K
EB5 - 0
EB Total - 41K
Am I missing something?
You are missing this:
The large number of LPRs in the EB in 2005 was primarily due to the AC21 Act of 2000, which recaptured 130,107 unused EB visa numbers from 1999 and 2000 to be made available to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd preference EB immigrants once the annual limit had been reached. Approximately 94,000 of those recaptured visa numbers were used in 2005. None of these visas were used in 2006. In addition, the REAL ID Act of 2005 recaptured 50,000 unused EB visas, 5,125 of which were used in 2005. In 2006, 33,341 of these visas were used, exceeding the 2006 employment preference limit of 143,949. The majority of the visa numbers recaptured by the REAL ID Act were issued to individuals whose country of origin was the Philippines (57 percent) or India (22 percent).
more...
satishku_2000
08-30 12:32 PM
My PD is 2002 Aug
Is it a sub. labor? I heard that in sub labor cases scrutiny is much higher
Is it a sub. labor? I heard that in sub labor cases scrutiny is much higher
keepwalking
05-21 12:22 PM
Thank you very much for your prompt reply.
Please let know if you took infopass appointment or help from Congressmen to push for your wife's I485 processing
Filed at : Nebraska Service Center
For Wife
Filed 485 on March 10, Finger printing May 6th, GC Approved May 9th, GC received May 13th
My Wife was on EAD/OPT based on her student visa (and not on H4)
Please let know if you took infopass appointment or help from Congressmen to push for your wife's I485 processing
Filed at : Nebraska Service Center
For Wife
Filed 485 on March 10, Finger printing May 6th, GC Approved May 9th, GC received May 13th
My Wife was on EAD/OPT based on her student visa (and not on H4)
more...
sobers
02-09 08:58 AM
Discussion about challenges in America�s immigration policies tends to focus on the millions of illegal immigrants. But the more pressing immigration problem facing the US today, writes Intel chairman Craig Barrett, is the dearth of high-skilled immigrants required to keep the US economy competitive. Due to tighter visa policies and a growth in opportunities elsewhere in the world, foreign students majoring in science and engineering at US universities are no longer staying to work after graduation in the large numbers that they once did. With the poor quality of science and math education at the primary and secondary levels in the US, the country cannot afford to lose any highly-skilled immigrants, particularly in key, technology-related disciplines. Along with across-the-board improvements in education, the US needs to find a way to attract enough new workers so that companies like Intel do not have to set up shop elsewhere.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
rolrblade
04-03 07:45 AM
I have the RFE, it doesn't state the exact instead mentions 12 weeks from the date of this letter. And the date of the letter is Jan 8, 2008
I do not see any harm in replying to an RFE even if it is late. You should really be pushing your employer and attorney to respond to this RFE at the EARLIEST.
It might also help to give a reason as to why you were late in responding.
I do not see any harm in replying to an RFE even if it is late. You should really be pushing your employer and attorney to respond to this RFE at the EARLIEST.
It might also help to give a reason as to why you were late in responding.
more...
seahawks
09-09 11:52 PM
Will there be merchandise sold locally when we come for the rally for us to buy since there may be no time for us to order and get it on time back in Seattle? We leave Seattle on Friday early hours (Sep 14th)
Munshi75
10-09 06:16 PM
By all standards, you should have the receipt number by now. Call USCIS customer service and follow the menu, have lot of patience and all the info with u when u call them up.
more...
sunty
07-26 12:02 PM
I live in Jersey City. I am planning to move to NYC. My company and job location stays the same. I have filed my I-485 (received July 23rd) with I-140pending. I don't have my I-485 receipt notice, only I-140 receipt.
1) Is it safe to change one's residence(different state) ?
2) How do I update my address for I-485 so that I get the receipt notice at the new address ? As far as I know USCIS stuff is not forwarded by USPS.
Thanks
1) Is it safe to change one's residence(different state) ?
2) How do I update my address for I-485 so that I get the receipt notice at the new address ? As far as I know USCIS stuff is not forwarded by USPS.
Thanks
mansour
03-06 08:30 PM
i voted for paddy duke :thumb:
i can understand the concept, but i still didn't like the bottom part of mlkdave's site.
btw paddy duke - it would've looked much better if you used the same pictures on (see, play, hear)
i can understand the concept, but i still didn't like the bottom part of mlkdave's site.
btw paddy duke - it would've looked much better if you used the same pictures on (see, play, hear)
more...
yjprakash
10-13 04:52 PM
What if EAD and AP is lost in mail. Do I need to pay fee again for refiling?
if yes that sucks!!!!!!!
if yes that sucks!!!!!!!
fall2004us
11-07 03:25 PM
I went to school in huntsville.....sweet home alabama....
good luck on starting a new IV chapter.
good luck on starting a new IV chapter.
more...
gcdreamer05
08-11 11:26 AM
Guys,
We have to come up with some numbers so we can plan our life ahead. Please vote only if your Application is pending. This is not for EB3-I who are already approved.
Thanks.
It is so pathetic to see ppl with 2001 PD have still not got GC in EB3, then what will happen to people like me who are in 2005 PD Eb3 :confused:
We have to come up with some numbers so we can plan our life ahead. Please vote only if your Application is pending. This is not for EB3-I who are already approved.
Thanks.
It is so pathetic to see ppl with 2001 PD have still not got GC in EB3, then what will happen to people like me who are in 2005 PD Eb3 :confused:
gccovet
05-16 04:15 PM
All,
Did not want to create any sensational news, but this is what I gathered from speaking to an IO. I had applied for my EAD on Jan 25th and havent received any updates. So, I called the NSC customer service and an IO informed me that I need to check back with them in another 60 days if no decision is made by that time. When I said that it would be 6 months by that time, the IO said that "that's right. Each IO has about 500 applications on their desk and it will take some time to clear these off"
Just wanted to update everyone so that all the June/July filers can file appropriately.
Again, mine could be an isolated case. So, please dont panic::))
This is going to get worse as July 07 filers (i am one of them) starts filing renewals.
Question is: Can a person currently working on EAD continue to work on EAD (renewal request filed) eventhough EAD expires? what would be the status if he/she cannot work?
GCCovet.
Did not want to create any sensational news, but this is what I gathered from speaking to an IO. I had applied for my EAD on Jan 25th and havent received any updates. So, I called the NSC customer service and an IO informed me that I need to check back with them in another 60 days if no decision is made by that time. When I said that it would be 6 months by that time, the IO said that "that's right. Each IO has about 500 applications on their desk and it will take some time to clear these off"
Just wanted to update everyone so that all the June/July filers can file appropriately.
Again, mine could be an isolated case. So, please dont panic::))
This is going to get worse as July 07 filers (i am one of them) starts filing renewals.
Question is: Can a person currently working on EAD continue to work on EAD (renewal request filed) eventhough EAD expires? what would be the status if he/she cannot work?
GCCovet.
redelite
08-26 10:07 AM
I want a smug smiley.
Also, the 'mad' one, :m: looks more like a steaming bun than an angry face ; )
I made this one the other day and put it up..http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47648&stc=1&d=1219355088
Not sure if that's quite what your looking for... but he's pretty angry :P
Also, the 'mad' one, :m: looks more like a steaming bun than an angry face ; )
I made this one the other day and put it up..http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47648&stc=1&d=1219355088
Not sure if that's quite what your looking for... but he's pretty angry :P
rajeshalex
07-30 09:29 AM
May be we can ask the important questions from everyone and filter it out/ask the top ten among them as a community?
gemini23
07-02 07:46 PM
Srikondoji,
the reference to mexicans here is defnintely uncalled for and has racist odor. You could have used "illegal immegrant" as they can be from any country in the world. I would expect a little maturity and humbleness from a senior member. my word of advice..dont be frustrated...this gc game needs lot more patience.
please apoligize and donate something to IV.
the reference to mexicans here is defnintely uncalled for and has racist odor. You could have used "illegal immegrant" as they can be from any country in the world. I would expect a little maturity and humbleness from a senior member. my word of advice..dont be frustrated...this gc game needs lot more patience.
please apoligize and donate something to IV.
0 comments:
Post a Comment