sapota
11-14 09:11 PM
Hello all IV members,
I was wondering, the 7% green card allotment for each country, can than be considered as racial discrimination? I mean a law suit against USCIS for discriminating against skilled workers.
A question for all you, what do you think is going to happen? will EB2 move fast in next few months, I don't understand how can U.S govt play will all our lives? We all have some personal decisions on hold,
Lastly i feel, we should contact some high profile politicians in India, so they can put a question or make some time of arrangement for Indians who are stuck over here, we all know unites states is interested in nuclear deal, if some type of provision is put in there to help Indians in this country
how about holding another DC rally?
We have to do some big about all this crap!
I am not sure it can be argued as discrimination. All countries equally have the 7% cap. UK, Norway, Germany, Sweden, China, India, South Africa.....Just so happens that lot more applicants from India, China, Mexico, philipines.
I was wondering, the 7% green card allotment for each country, can than be considered as racial discrimination? I mean a law suit against USCIS for discriminating against skilled workers.
A question for all you, what do you think is going to happen? will EB2 move fast in next few months, I don't understand how can U.S govt play will all our lives? We all have some personal decisions on hold,
Lastly i feel, we should contact some high profile politicians in India, so they can put a question or make some time of arrangement for Indians who are stuck over here, we all know unites states is interested in nuclear deal, if some type of provision is put in there to help Indians in this country
how about holding another DC rally?
We have to do some big about all this crap!
I am not sure it can be argued as discrimination. All countries equally have the 7% cap. UK, Norway, Germany, Sweden, China, India, South Africa.....Just so happens that lot more applicants from India, China, Mexico, philipines.
anzerraja
07-20 09:26 AM
Lately the members of IV have come to know that Aman Kapoor, the co-founder of IV has sold his house and spent around $64000/- towards the administrative costs of IV. This too was brought to our attention from a regular member like you and me, without which this would not have come to our knowledge at all.
So some of the members have taken an initiative to reimburse Aman and other core IV team members with the expenses they have incurred so far towards the administrative costs of IV. Note that the time they have spent and the sufferings cannot be compensated. Let us do the least by atleast compensating the money. Please do not donate directly to IV funds.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
So some of the members have taken an initiative to reimburse Aman and other core IV team members with the expenses they have incurred so far towards the administrative costs of IV. Note that the time they have spent and the sufferings cannot be compensated. Let us do the least by atleast compensating the money. Please do not donate directly to IV funds.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
needhelp!
01-21 01:49 PM
I know one or two friends who had gap in between H1 transfer. So far USCIS has not been to strict about it.
If you find a minute, could you please update your profile to help other members and IV?
If you find a minute, could you please update your profile to help other members and IV?
ronhira
04-26 07:44 PM
this is how cir will end..... with a procedural vote -
Financial regulation plan fails first Senate test - U.S. business- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36770907/ns/business-us_business/)
bet $100?
Financial regulation plan fails first Senate test - U.S. business- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36770907/ns/business-us_business/)
bet $100?
more...
vinay@ocean
06-08 11:52 PM
Hi all,
I have come to texas on a B1 to the client location. I stayed with my colleague who has a apartment here. When we left to office ( my first day ) .I made a mistake leaving my passport and others in apartment. .
I have applied and got a new passport .
I have applied for I-94 by filing I-102 . The processing dates are very slow for this . I only have a reciept of this and nothing.
I am leaving 3july next month...what need to be done....i dont even have a VISA.
And what needs to be done for B1 VISA.
I emailed the chennai US embassy but couldnt get any reply............
PLEAASE...HELP:(:confused:
I have come to texas on a B1 to the client location. I stayed with my colleague who has a apartment here. When we left to office ( my first day ) .I made a mistake leaving my passport and others in apartment. .
I have applied and got a new passport .
I have applied for I-94 by filing I-102 . The processing dates are very slow for this . I only have a reciept of this and nothing.
I am leaving 3july next month...what need to be done....i dont even have a VISA.
And what needs to be done for B1 VISA.
I emailed the chennai US embassy but couldnt get any reply............
PLEAASE...HELP:(:confused:
newlife2
09-19 10:16 PM
Guys, I was just laid off and have efiled i539 3 days after the termination date for a status change to F2. Now working on the application letter. Do you think I should mention the layoff in the letter?
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
more...
jonty_11
07-23 11:55 AM
CA is expensive...I am sure more than PA...but the decision is yours man...However, I do not think this is the right forum for such questions. If you have issues with GC retrogression then fire away.
ram04
04-25 10:13 PM
I m joining new company by changing H1.
Too many questions too little input to take decission. Please provide your expertise advice.
-When do I have to raise Ac21?
- with H1 transfer or after or is it not required legally?
- Is it safe to transfer H1 (after 180days) without AC21?
- How will it affect my 485?
-What are the docs to be collected from old employer?
-Can I retain same lawyer for GC while H1 is taken care by new company lawyer?
Guys - I m running out of time and got to respond to new company soon.
Please provide your inputs.
-Gc04
July 07 filer
Chicago state Chapter
Too many questions too little input to take decission. Please provide your expertise advice.
-When do I have to raise Ac21?
- with H1 transfer or after or is it not required legally?
- Is it safe to transfer H1 (after 180days) without AC21?
- How will it affect my 485?
-What are the docs to be collected from old employer?
-Can I retain same lawyer for GC while H1 is taken care by new company lawyer?
Guys - I m running out of time and got to respond to new company soon.
Please provide your inputs.
-Gc04
July 07 filer
Chicago state Chapter
more...
humsuplou
11-30 10:42 PM
Hi,
Can someone please kindly share their experince in this matter? I really need some advice.
Thanks!!
Can someone please kindly share their experince in this matter? I really need some advice.
Thanks!!
valatharv
07-26 08:37 AM
Finally we got our 485 approved on July 15, 2010...
Priority date : March 2005
Cat: EB2, NSC
Priority date : March 2005
Cat: EB2, NSC
more...
ashkam
06-25 11:35 AM
The question is, did you earn any money at all in 2007? The information you provided is a bit vague, in one place you say you received paychecks till December 15 2007, in another place you say you did not get paid in 2007. It is simple really, if you did not earn any money in 2007, then you do not have to add your W2 to your tax returns. If you did earn money in 2007, then the company has to supply you with a W2.
Of course, not earning any money in 2007, while keeping you okay with respect to the IRS, might get you in trouble with the USCIS.
Of course, not earning any money in 2007, while keeping you okay with respect to the IRS, might get you in trouble with the USCIS.
kaskar
06-19 01:27 PM
any members planning consular processing in delhi ???
please respond
please respond
more...
chanduv23
07-05 07:20 AM
Senthil1 - behaves like an anti immigrant sitting in this forum. Though at times he gets things right and in perspective, most times he is always supportive of the other side - with no logic or reasoning.
Senthil - do you get paid by numbersusa etc// :D :D :D :D
Does USCIS promise u fast citizenship if you do this???:D :D :D :D
Senthil - do you get paid by numbersusa etc// :D :D :D :D
Does USCIS promise u fast citizenship if you do this???:D :D :D :D
hpandey
12-26 01:31 PM
Both are wrong answers .. no one is an alien .. we are all human beings :D
Just kidding ..
But on a serious note I think we fall under non-resident alien.
Just kidding ..
But on a serious note I think we fall under non-resident alien.
more...
prioritydate
08-14 12:33 PM
yes u are
And what is that??
And what is that??
tikka
06-04 11:28 AM
for the senate to start debating...
can you please send some web faxes?
Also, if you have not contrbuted please do so ASAP. IV really need funds for our lobbying efforts.
Thank you
can you please send some web faxes?
Also, if you have not contrbuted please do so ASAP. IV really need funds for our lobbying efforts.
Thank you
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.
gcnotfiledyet
02-26 11:29 AM
http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/
From this group it does not look like there is any rule followed by states as they follow CGFNS guidelines. It is just that USCIS has started using OOH for PTs. It looks like AILA will be filing something with USCIS.
My first question: you have been here for 5yrs on h1b then why did you not file green card under schedule A when it was current until Dec 2006? I am really surprised. You would have been on green card long time back. Actually I am even surprised that you did not go for masters even afer being here for 5years.
If there is any other way you can continue your presence in US then go for it. You just have to be patient for USCIS to start accepting what state boards accept while issuing licenses. If state boards do not mind foreign bachelors to practise PT then I don't understand why USCIS would care. I think its just another shot from USCIS to shoot immigrants out of this country.
Getting into masters of PT can't be that quick. Schools just don't accept students everyday. They have deadlines for every semester and there is so much paperwork including exams, evaluations, proof of funding etc etc. So do talk to lawyer for your options to stay here, talk to school on how to enroll in masters, if your spouse is on h1 then get onto h4 by filing cos. These are just my guesses. Again talk to lawyer for your options ASAP.
From this group it does not look like there is any rule followed by states as they follow CGFNS guidelines. It is just that USCIS has started using OOH for PTs. It looks like AILA will be filing something with USCIS.
My first question: you have been here for 5yrs on h1b then why did you not file green card under schedule A when it was current until Dec 2006? I am really surprised. You would have been on green card long time back. Actually I am even surprised that you did not go for masters even afer being here for 5years.
If there is any other way you can continue your presence in US then go for it. You just have to be patient for USCIS to start accepting what state boards accept while issuing licenses. If state boards do not mind foreign bachelors to practise PT then I don't understand why USCIS would care. I think its just another shot from USCIS to shoot immigrants out of this country.
Getting into masters of PT can't be that quick. Schools just don't accept students everyday. They have deadlines for every semester and there is so much paperwork including exams, evaluations, proof of funding etc etc. So do talk to lawyer for your options to stay here, talk to school on how to enroll in masters, if your spouse is on h1 then get onto h4 by filing cos. These are just my guesses. Again talk to lawyer for your options ASAP.
willigetgc?
04-28 01:32 PM
I like your profile image ........ explains every back logged immigrant's situation!
read this:
Congressional Dems Say No Immigration Bill Anytime Soon - The Gaggle Blog - Newsweek.com (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/04/26/congressional-dems-say-no-immigration-bill-anytime-soon.aspx?hpid=topnews)
So what this means is twofold: that immigration is both the most tantalizing and the most dangerous demographic political issue on the American horizon. There now are 45 million Hispanics in America, 10 million to 11 million of whom have no legal permission to be here. The Hispanic vote is rising in importance, but there is still 9 percent unemployment (12 percent among Latinos) and citizen-workers feel under siege
Both Reps and Dems want their votes, but don't have the guts to do it!
read this:
Congressional Dems Say No Immigration Bill Anytime Soon - The Gaggle Blog - Newsweek.com (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/04/26/congressional-dems-say-no-immigration-bill-anytime-soon.aspx?hpid=topnews)
So what this means is twofold: that immigration is both the most tantalizing and the most dangerous demographic political issue on the American horizon. There now are 45 million Hispanics in America, 10 million to 11 million of whom have no legal permission to be here. The Hispanic vote is rising in importance, but there is still 9 percent unemployment (12 percent among Latinos) and citizen-workers feel under siege
Both Reps and Dems want their votes, but don't have the guts to do it!
desi_scorpion
08-02 02:39 PM
I have always used fedex....excellent service for most critical documents....I might have shipped 50 times to India......never used anything else.
rameshraju11
11-01 06:03 PM
Hello,
since your H1b has not been rejected yet , you still can re-file H1b at the same time
call USCIS and request for additional time for RFE and send RFE documents for the
original H1B
tx
since your H1b has not been rejected yet , you still can re-file H1b at the same time
call USCIS and request for additional time for RFE and send RFE documents for the
original H1B
tx
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий