.jpg "Beach Wallpapers - Free PC")
Michael chertoff
02-01 09:04 PM
Hi Everyone,
My AP is valid until JUNE 27 2011, (Here is the line from the I-512L, Presentation of the Original Document prior to June 27 2011 allows a customs and border protection inspector at a port-of-entry to parole the named bearer) I'm travelling to India during May / June and will be entering LAX back on June25. Will this be an issue as my AP is expiring in next couple of days.
Experts please let me know your thoughts on my situation whether it is safe to travel and getting in back will not be of an issue.
Thanks if you can help me out
Regards
Karthik
why dont you apply for renewel?
Thanks
MC
My AP is valid until JUNE 27 2011, (Here is the line from the I-512L, Presentation of the Original Document prior to June 27 2011 allows a customs and border protection inspector at a port-of-entry to parole the named bearer) I'm travelling to India during May / June and will be entering LAX back on June25. Will this be an issue as my AP is expiring in next couple of days.
Experts please let me know your thoughts on my situation whether it is safe to travel and getting in back will not be of an issue.
Thanks if you can help me out
Regards
Karthik
why dont you apply for renewel?
Thanks
MC
wallpaper Beach Wallpapers - Free PC
jsrajavel
06-20 06:05 PM
I have a 9 digit number (xxx xxx xxx) with prefix 'A' on my approved I-140 notice (Nov 2006) just above my beneficiary name.
I was confused about this number, so I called USCIS today and found that the number on my I-140 petition is the Alien number.
USCIS representative clearly stated that 'A' number, File number and Alien registration number are one and the same; also this number can be 7 to 9 digits with prefix 'A'.
So if you have �A� number on the I-140 approved notice please provide the same appropriately. However, not all I-140 petitions will have 'A' number.
One other thing, Please do NOT say 'N/A' instead say 'NONE' if 'A' number is unknown at this present time.
Thanks
Raj
I am confused. I have I 140 approval copy but it does not have A# in it. I know lots of people who have approved I 140 and they have A# in it. Please let me know what should I do in this case?
I was confused about this number, so I called USCIS today and found that the number on my I-140 petition is the Alien number.
USCIS representative clearly stated that 'A' number, File number and Alien registration number are one and the same; also this number can be 7 to 9 digits with prefix 'A'.
So if you have �A� number on the I-140 approved notice please provide the same appropriately. However, not all I-140 petitions will have 'A' number.
One other thing, Please do NOT say 'N/A' instead say 'NONE' if 'A' number is unknown at this present time.
Thanks
Raj
I am confused. I have I 140 approval copy but it does not have A# in it. I know lots of people who have approved I 140 and they have A# in it. Please let me know what should I do in this case?
gc_mania_03
06-24 10:00 AM
Even I am going back to school full-time with my wife on EAD with AOS pending. As far as I know there are no issues. If there are any specifics in your case, just consult your attorney.
I remember in one of the calls with attorney[organized by IV], I was told I don't have to worry about producing pay-stubs.
-gc_mania_03
I remember in one of the calls with attorney[organized by IV], I was told I don't have to worry about producing pay-stubs.
-gc_mania_03
2011 each wallpaper for desktop.
HumHongeKamiyab
03-16 12:05 PM
Thanks Yagw. Appreciate your response. That is the part I am not certain: If they ask for Copies of Tax return?
Also, as per my understanding, You only get RFE when your PD is current (I did not file AC21, when I switched to EAD). And, since EB3 india is stuck on Oct 01 for months now, It will be years before they get to my case. Am I right in my assumption ?
Also, as per my understanding, You only get RFE when your PD is current (I did not file AC21, when I switched to EAD). And, since EB3 india is stuck on Oct 01 for months now, It will be years before they get to my case. Am I right in my assumption ?
more...
archum123
08-03 09:34 AM
Hey! I am a practising dentist and I am on H1B.
Q: Does she need a dental license to apply for H1 ?
Ans:Yes a dental license is required for applying for a dentist position
Q: She 'qualifies' for a dental license (ie meets all requirements), but almost all states require a SSN to issue a dental license. Since she is on H4, she doesnt have a SSN. Problem: Dental License needs SSN - SSN needs H1 - H1 needs license - basically a "Catch 22" position here
Ans: Qualification is a very broad term. A dental degree doesnot make one eligible for a license. There are other important requirements for a license like National dental Boards, a clinical exam, jurisprudence exam of the state.
Also, if one one "qualifies" with all the requirements he or she can apply based on the TIN #. The board must be informed that a TIN is used and will need to be updated with SSN when you recieve one.
HI, does the same holds good or a DENTAL HYGENISTS ? is there any chances to be sponsered for h1?
Q: Does she need a dental license to apply for H1 ?
Ans:Yes a dental license is required for applying for a dentist position
Q: She 'qualifies' for a dental license (ie meets all requirements), but almost all states require a SSN to issue a dental license. Since she is on H4, she doesnt have a SSN. Problem: Dental License needs SSN - SSN needs H1 - H1 needs license - basically a "Catch 22" position here
Ans: Qualification is a very broad term. A dental degree doesnot make one eligible for a license. There are other important requirements for a license like National dental Boards, a clinical exam, jurisprudence exam of the state.
Also, if one one "qualifies" with all the requirements he or she can apply based on the TIN #. The board must be informed that a TIN is used and will need to be updated with SSN when you recieve one.
HI, does the same holds good or a DENTAL HYGENISTS ? is there any chances to be sponsered for h1?
jliechty
June 17th, 2006, 08:17 PM
Great photos, Antonio. It's hard for me to pick a favorite. :cool:
more...
lskreddy
10-10 02:03 PM
Paranoia at its helm. There are things that protect you like AC-21 when you don't have a GC. You have a GC, move on to the client job..
The only concern is if you had a contract signed with your consulting firm that you would not join your client for x number of years yada yada, so check your contract, if nothing is in there, you should be fine..
The only concern is if you had a contract signed with your consulting firm that you would not join your client for x number of years yada yada, so check your contract, if nothing is in there, you should be fine..
2010 Free night each Wallpapers
lost_in_migration
09-20 10:04 AM
Good find. This reporter was successful in differentiating between high skilled legal immigrants and the low skilled illegals!! Our rally is bearing fruits as far as educating people about our problems is concerned
NPRs market place full article can be found here
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/09/20/skilled_immigrant_protests/
NPRs market place full article can be found here
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/09/20/skilled_immigrant_protests/
more...
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
hair Summer Beach Wallpaper II
monkeyman
10-24 09:43 AM
Unless your parents have SSN, you can't really claim exemption. The other way you could claim exemption is, if they visitied for business reasons - such as running your motel, shop or business. For that, you'd need the B1 visa. Medical expenses are not really covered for them as far as I know (I used an insurance company for that).
Do post any further updates if you do get them. I did talk to a CPA since they came here to help me with my house and moving and painting and all that headache that comes once you buy a house. He did not file for exemptions as such. You can however claim exemptions if you had gone to India for visa stamping (flight tickets, charges etc are exempted).
Do post any further updates if you do get them. I did talk to a CPA since they came here to help me with my house and moving and painting and all that headache that comes once you buy a house. He did not file for exemptions as such. You can however claim exemptions if you had gone to India for visa stamping (flight tickets, charges etc are exempted).
more...
hsingh82
04-09 05:33 PM
I think we will be in the long wait together :D, my perm should be filed in next couple of days.
hot free wallpaper sexy for the
gcwatchdog
10-18 01:58 PM
No need to worry even if it's warning...
I had a same situation with my wife FP yesterday.
she got warning for 2 fingers........
I asked FP officer why the warnings and does it cause any problems.then
she replied nothing to worry it happens somtimes..
then asked again do we need to comeback again for FP.....
she replied no..not necessary unless and until FBI has any questions...
I had a same situation with my wife FP yesterday.
she got warning for 2 fingers........
I asked FP officer why the warnings and does it cause any problems.then
she replied nothing to worry it happens somtimes..
then asked again do we need to comeback again for FP.....
she replied no..not necessary unless and until FBI has any questions...
more...
house Free Nice Beach Wallpapers
rameshvaid
09-02 03:02 PM
Hi there,
I have been arrested for shoplifting. Finger printed,and produced in court. The case has been dismissed as I did not do it on purpose. I got the document from the court that case is DISMISSED. 1. Is it good to do the "Case Expungement"?
2. Does the port of entry officer sees the arrest even I expunge the case?
3. any other scenarios I might encounter?
Any suggestions are highly appreciated
Thank you
At the POE the IO will surely know abt your arrest. Have all your documents from the court and show it to them and you will be allowed to come in.
Expungement can be done only after 12 months and u should not have any other record against you.
Just relax,, do not repeat the mistake and cross the boarder if you have to peacefully.. You will be just fine..
RV
I have been arrested for shoplifting. Finger printed,and produced in court. The case has been dismissed as I did not do it on purpose. I got the document from the court that case is DISMISSED. 1. Is it good to do the "Case Expungement"?
2. Does the port of entry officer sees the arrest even I expunge the case?
3. any other scenarios I might encounter?
Any suggestions are highly appreciated
Thank you
At the POE the IO will surely know abt your arrest. Have all your documents from the court and show it to them and you will be allowed to come in.
Expungement can be done only after 12 months and u should not have any other record against you.
Just relax,, do not repeat the mistake and cross the boarder if you have to peacefully.. You will be just fine..
RV
tattoo eaches wallpaper free.
senthil1
09-12 11:29 AM
There is no doubt Obama admin is trying selective protectionist measures not only in immigration but also in trade.
The Rubber Meets The Road - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/12/china-imports-tires-business-washington-tariff.html)
Will it good for world? No. Will it good for America? Yes for short term. But long term it is bad for USA according to economists. But generally USA reverses the protectionist measures when economy rebounds and there is huge demand for US labor. So USA is not losing that much. Is it a fair or correct? If you compare with other countries may be it is correct. China is manipulating its currency for their convenience. That is a huge protectionist measure. When it comes to welfare of the country every country does unfair things. USA is not exception but still much better than most countries in the world.
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Today's guest blogger is William Stock (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3), member of AILA's Board of Governors and partner in the law firm Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer
Employers who rely on foreign nationals to provide needed expertise in their workforce - from technical programmers to biochemists to wind turbine engineers - should take notice of three troubling trends which are becoming clearer as the discussion about employment-based immigration reform gets drowned out by the ongoing debate about comprehensive immigration reform.
The first trend is captured in this blog post (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3) by Vivek Wadhwa, a professor at Duke University who has studied high-tech entrepreneurship extensively. Current backlogs in the employment-based immigration categories trap foreign workers in the original job for which they were sponsored, meaning their companies cannot promote them to positions where their experience and skills can best be used. Nor can the workers take the initiative to start their own companies - while a small company may be able to sponsor one of its owners as an H-1B, a green card is much less likely in that situation. Wadhwa points out that eliminating the green card backlog (a major part of which consists of cases trapped by bureaucratic delays that should have been approved in past years� quotas, which do not carry over from year to year) would free an enormous amount of human capital to innovate and create the next generation of companies that will drive economic growth in the US.
More troubling, a combination of the green card quotas (which tie foreign nationals to one specific job) and rules for terminated H-1B workers (described in detail here (http://www.klaskolaw.com/articles.php?action=view&id=8)) are driving away the most talented foreign graduates of our universities. Recent surveys and profiles of foreign nationals in the US - particularly Indian engineers in Silicon Valley (http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/home-where-brain) - have highlighted an increase in the number of H-1B who are opting to return home, either from necessity or because the Indian economy now offers them opportunities to start or manage companies that the U.S. can�t match because of their visa situation. While opponents of high-tech immigration love to argue that H-1B visas allow tech workers to come to the US and learn skills that they can use back home, the fact is that most tech workers would prefer to use those skills in the US - and that immigrants are a key part of the Silicon Valley start-up community (given how many start-ups have at least one immigrant founder).
The most troubling trend, however, will not be immediate in its impact. For the first time in five years, US graduate programs reported a drop (http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/aug2009/bs20090820_960342.htm) in the number of international applications to their programs and the number of accepted applicants who chose to come to their programs. These students are the best and brightest from their countries, and when they choose to go to other countries rather than the US, we lose out not only on the tuition dollars they would have spent (at rates higher than out-of-state students pay), but also on their talents for companies in the US.
While these trends are troubling, they are not irreversible. What it will take, however, is a rational reform of our employment-based immigration system to recognize the contributions these immigrants make, and the national interest in providing a welcome mat to them.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8233644330835442863?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/americas-shrinking-immigration.html)
The Rubber Meets The Road - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/12/china-imports-tires-business-washington-tariff.html)
Will it good for world? No. Will it good for America? Yes for short term. But long term it is bad for USA according to economists. But generally USA reverses the protectionist measures when economy rebounds and there is huge demand for US labor. So USA is not losing that much. Is it a fair or correct? If you compare with other countries may be it is correct. China is manipulating its currency for their convenience. That is a huge protectionist measure. When it comes to welfare of the country every country does unfair things. USA is not exception but still much better than most countries in the world.
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Today's guest blogger is William Stock (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3), member of AILA's Board of Governors and partner in the law firm Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer
Employers who rely on foreign nationals to provide needed expertise in their workforce - from technical programmers to biochemists to wind turbine engineers - should take notice of three troubling trends which are becoming clearer as the discussion about employment-based immigration reform gets drowned out by the ongoing debate about comprehensive immigration reform.
The first trend is captured in this blog post (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3) by Vivek Wadhwa, a professor at Duke University who has studied high-tech entrepreneurship extensively. Current backlogs in the employment-based immigration categories trap foreign workers in the original job for which they were sponsored, meaning their companies cannot promote them to positions where their experience and skills can best be used. Nor can the workers take the initiative to start their own companies - while a small company may be able to sponsor one of its owners as an H-1B, a green card is much less likely in that situation. Wadhwa points out that eliminating the green card backlog (a major part of which consists of cases trapped by bureaucratic delays that should have been approved in past years� quotas, which do not carry over from year to year) would free an enormous amount of human capital to innovate and create the next generation of companies that will drive economic growth in the US.
More troubling, a combination of the green card quotas (which tie foreign nationals to one specific job) and rules for terminated H-1B workers (described in detail here (http://www.klaskolaw.com/articles.php?action=view&id=8)) are driving away the most talented foreign graduates of our universities. Recent surveys and profiles of foreign nationals in the US - particularly Indian engineers in Silicon Valley (http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/home-where-brain) - have highlighted an increase in the number of H-1B who are opting to return home, either from necessity or because the Indian economy now offers them opportunities to start or manage companies that the U.S. can�t match because of their visa situation. While opponents of high-tech immigration love to argue that H-1B visas allow tech workers to come to the US and learn skills that they can use back home, the fact is that most tech workers would prefer to use those skills in the US - and that immigrants are a key part of the Silicon Valley start-up community (given how many start-ups have at least one immigrant founder).
The most troubling trend, however, will not be immediate in its impact. For the first time in five years, US graduate programs reported a drop (http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/aug2009/bs20090820_960342.htm) in the number of international applications to their programs and the number of accepted applicants who chose to come to their programs. These students are the best and brightest from their countries, and when they choose to go to other countries rather than the US, we lose out not only on the tuition dollars they would have spent (at rates higher than out-of-state students pay), but also on their talents for companies in the US.
While these trends are troubling, they are not irreversible. What it will take, however, is a rational reform of our employment-based immigration system to recognize the contributions these immigrants make, and the national interest in providing a welcome mat to them.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8233644330835442863?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/americas-shrinking-immigration.html)
more...
pictures Beach Wallpapers Free
.jpg "Beach Wallpapers Free Download")
ag11
09-04 04:14 PM
I applied for 11th year H1B extension in June 2009 @ Vermont center and now I got an RFE which asks us to submit the end client letter with details likes the duration of the project, name of the supervisor, if vendor is involved then vendor details. I've been with the same employer (desi consulting firm) for last 7 years and with the same client for last 6 years. I dont know what will happen but I am doing everything I can and prepared for worst case scenario.
Same exact case. Just give as much detailed info as you can. Do not leave any room for any ambiguity that would confuse USCIS. Remember it is only high school level staff that is accessing your case. So they don't go by logic. Dum it down to their level. Worst case according to my lawyer is that they may give a restrictive judgement for only for the period of contract or come up with an additional RFE with more details on the additional vendor.
Please make sure your response is as comprehensive as possible. I just went through this and am waiting for a reply.
In any case, it is always good to be prepared for the worst case scenario. Just remember that we are very qualified and smart professionals and will continue to make progress no matter where we go
Same exact case. Just give as much detailed info as you can. Do not leave any room for any ambiguity that would confuse USCIS. Remember it is only high school level staff that is accessing your case. So they don't go by logic. Dum it down to their level. Worst case according to my lawyer is that they may give a restrictive judgement for only for the period of contract or come up with an additional RFE with more details on the additional vendor.
Please make sure your response is as comprehensive as possible. I just went through this and am waiting for a reply.
In any case, it is always good to be prepared for the worst case scenario. Just remember that we are very qualified and smart professionals and will continue to make progress no matter where we go
dresses each-free-wallpapers-204
javadeveloper
03-28 01:27 PM
Thanks, but will there be any charges against me for not filing the taxes before.
WIll it effect my immigration status.
What I heard from others is:
1.If we owe money to State/Fed then it may be a problem
2.No problem if we are supposed to get money from State/Fed
I May be wrong , but check with others too
WIll it effect my immigration status.
What I heard from others is:
1.If we owe money to State/Fed then it may be a problem
2.No problem if we are supposed to get money from State/Fed
I May be wrong , but check with others too
more...
makeup free beach wallpaper
pani_6
06-05 09:51 AM
I think next month its predicted that the Visa numbers will move forward and then retrogress again...so in October again there may be forward movement..what do you guys think!
girlfriend at each free wallpapers
walking_dude
12-05 11:34 AM
ACLU is using USCIS/FBI over namecheck delays. Not sure if the lawsuit is limited to Citizenship applicants or GC applicants can be included.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7632838?nclick_check=1
If anyone stuck in greencards namechecks wants to contact ACLU about it to include GC namecheck issue in it, they can do so.
Here are the contact details:
NADINE STROSSEN1
President of the ACLU
nstrossen@nyls.edu
===================
Their general feedback form
http://www.aclu.org/contact/general/index.html
============
You can search for your local ACLU contact:
http://www.aclu.org/affiliates/
ACLU Immigrants rights project E-mail - immrights@aclu.org
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7632838?nclick_check=1
If anyone stuck in greencards namechecks wants to contact ACLU about it to include GC namecheck issue in it, they can do so.
Here are the contact details:
NADINE STROSSEN1
President of the ACLU
nstrossen@nyls.edu
===================
Their general feedback form
http://www.aclu.org/contact/general/index.html
============
You can search for your local ACLU contact:
http://www.aclu.org/affiliates/
ACLU Immigrants rights project E-mail - immrights@aclu.org
hairstyles Free Starfish On Beach
EndlessWait
01-23 01:26 PM
Still waiting.. there processing time says July still.
visves
12-20 12:03 PM
I believe the AP needs to be approved before the person leaves the country for it to be used while coming back. This needs to be clarified though.
From your post, it sounds like she doesn't have an H4 stamp on her passport, but only the approval notice. She can't re-enter the US only by showing the approval notice at the port of entry. She needs to have the stamp on her passport as you already may be aware of.
Sending AP (or any other immigration document in original) outside of the US (e.g., to India) via courier/mail is risky, if not forbidden by law.
GG_007
PS: Not a lawyer, just my personal opinion.
From your post, it sounds like she doesn't have an H4 stamp on her passport, but only the approval notice. She can't re-enter the US only by showing the approval notice at the port of entry. She needs to have the stamp on her passport as you already may be aware of.
Sending AP (or any other immigration document in original) outside of the US (e.g., to India) via courier/mail is risky, if not forbidden by law.
GG_007
PS: Not a lawyer, just my personal opinion.
a_paradkar
08-08 07:45 AM
Pamposh:
I am in the same boat. Is there anyway of figuring out whether USCIS Vermont recevied and Fwd to TSC / NSC?
What is your back up plan
I am in the same boat. Is there anyway of figuring out whether USCIS Vermont recevied and Fwd to TSC / NSC?
What is your back up plan
No comments:
Post a Comment