diptam
06-24 06:17 PM
I mean from AUG 1st the CURRENT status may vanish... who knows ?
NEBRASKA is currently processing 485 submitted as of Sep 26 2006 which means the backlog is of 1 yr 9 months.....
may be this will help you
485 fess from Jul 30th will be 1010USD. This also has EAD & AP fees built into it and you can keep on renewing EAD & AP with out paying fees every year unil you get your GC.
485 fess until Jul 30th is 395 USD and you will pay separate fee for both EAD & AP every year until you get GC.
How can we expect to pay 395 USD for GC and get free EAD & AP every year? makes sense?
NEBRASKA is currently processing 485 submitted as of Sep 26 2006 which means the backlog is of 1 yr 9 months.....
may be this will help you
485 fess from Jul 30th will be 1010USD. This also has EAD & AP fees built into it and you can keep on renewing EAD & AP with out paying fees every year unil you get your GC.
485 fess until Jul 30th is 395 USD and you will pay separate fee for both EAD & AP every year until you get GC.
How can we expect to pay 395 USD for GC and get free EAD & AP every year? makes sense?
mariusp
07-31 04:26 PM
Don't worry, that's what they do down here. I renewed twice and that was the deal every time. You'll get your DL in 30 days in the mail.
belmontboy
01-18 02:58 PM
Chances for an audit are 95%:(
do u have any source for this?
If you don't, you should learn not to give answers that you don't know.
do u have any source for this?
If you don't, you should learn not to give answers that you don't know.
gc28262
02-09 01:00 PM
Pardon my ignorance.
What is op-ed ?
What is op-ed ?
more...
rajivkumarverma
10-16 07:16 PM
Whats the reason for the denial ?
My Labour was For EB-3 and my I-140 was filled in EB2
One of my Colleague also had same case but he got query on his
I-140 and mine got denied
I have a question
Now I will have to file new labour and I-140 can
Will I loose my old priority dates
My Labour was For EB-3 and my I-140 was filled in EB2
One of my Colleague also had same case but he got query on his
I-140 and mine got denied
I have a question
Now I will have to file new labour and I-140 can
Will I loose my old priority dates
ImmiRam
09-13 02:31 PM
Excerpt from the IV Home Page:
"It is discriminatory to have laws that subject immigrants from 4 nations to more backlogs and the resulting hardship from such backlogs.
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth."
Based on abvove, my question is - can we take Legal route i.e move to courts ? or Immigration agencies are protected ?
"It is discriminatory to have laws that subject immigrants from 4 nations to more backlogs and the resulting hardship from such backlogs.
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth."
Based on abvove, my question is - can we take Legal route i.e move to courts ? or Immigration agencies are protected ?
more...
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
dixie
08-23 06:55 PM
We all know very well by now that the house of representatives is THE mover when it comes to passing any pro-legal immigration bill.Given that half of those representatives may loose their jobs in the coming election, I dont see much point in contacting them now if they have already made up their mind not to do anything on immigration until the elections. But we will have to double our efforts as soon as the new congress settles in so that our agenda gets highlighted to the new members of congress.
But look at the positive side. We have more time to contact the law makers.
But look at the positive side. We have more time to contact the law makers.
more...
sbajaj80
09-14 09:05 AM
Our checks were cashed yesterday. Receipt notice date for application is 9/8.
delhirocks
03-30 04:00 PM
Double check with Halifax, as far as I remember Halifax does not entertain 3rd country nationals. I went through this when I was in Boston. Based on my research at that time (2003), I conculded the only options I have available are Montreal & Toronto (I went to Montreal).
Things might have changed since then.
Things might have changed since then.
more...
breddy2000
03-09 10:22 AM
Why not? If multinational executives are not excellent enough to apply for EB1, who esle are?
Most of the Multinational executives are people who are managing their people(Onsite Project Managers and Onsite Co-ordinators) at the client locations and managing client relationship.
What I mean is, when you compare a NIW person( who is in research fields and publishes numerous papers and dedicated his/her life in scientific research, should be given preference over the Executive. EB1 belongs to exceptional individuals.
The general requirement is that the individual should have risen to the "top of her/his field of endeavor."
(i) as demonstrated by national or international acclaim
(ii) which should be recognized through extensive documentation and
(iii) the alien should continue the work in the same field and
(iv) would substantially benefit the U.S. prospectively
Hope you got it.
Most of the Multinational executives are people who are managing their people(Onsite Project Managers and Onsite Co-ordinators) at the client locations and managing client relationship.
What I mean is, when you compare a NIW person( who is in research fields and publishes numerous papers and dedicated his/her life in scientific research, should be given preference over the Executive. EB1 belongs to exceptional individuals.
The general requirement is that the individual should have risen to the "top of her/his field of endeavor."
(i) as demonstrated by national or international acclaim
(ii) which should be recognized through extensive documentation and
(iii) the alien should continue the work in the same field and
(iv) would substantially benefit the U.S. prospectively
Hope you got it.
pappu
09-22 01:12 PM
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070026637
more...
ameryki
08-12 12:34 PM
Efiled for my wife May 17th to NSC got LIN number. No update so far. Next week will be 90 days.
sai
05-25 06:49 AM
sent
more...
ivdude
10-02 02:00 PM
Literally, windsor(Canada) and Detroit (USA) are seperated by river, so keeping GC and PR is like riding in two boats ... not possible. While Canadians are liberal in allowing their immigrants to travel daily into US to conduct their jobs ( that brings easy tax $$), it would be inconvienent to track daily movements out of country for GC. Remember at US citizenship, you will be asked to provide detailed log of trvels outside the country. So trip to Windsor is technically outside the country.
I had Canadian PR and am giving it up, because I finally got GC. With GCI can trvel freely into Canada. Plus even before Canadian PR, I never lived in Canada nor do I plan to in future. So why bother.
Did you hand over PR Cards to canadian govt or nothing has to be done.
I had Canadian PR and am giving it up, because I finally got GC. With GCI can trvel freely into Canada. Plus even before Canadian PR, I never lived in Canada nor do I plan to in future. So why bother.
Did you hand over PR Cards to canadian govt or nothing has to be done.
GCFROMOHIO
01-12 12:12 AM
Please refrain from claiming any unemployment benefits while on EAD and 485 pending.
Urgent Help Needed!!!!!! IO with State Police at home today morning. (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/237011787/urgent-help-needed-io-with-state-police-at-home-today-morning)
Thanks
Urgent Help Needed!!!!!! IO with State Police at home today morning. (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/237011787/urgent-help-needed-io-with-state-police-at-home-today-morning)
Thanks
more...
anurakt
12-21 04:19 PM
I promise ... last bump of the day !! or may be not......:D
dsneyog
01-15 09:36 AM
Now I feel like they are just holding mine. LOL. Good to know.
My application received: Dec 2
Check cashes: Dec 7
Status: Initial Review
Expedite Request file: Jan 14th
I paper filed AP at TSC on Dec 14 ( Renewal)
Check cashed on Dec 16
Ap received on Jan 9
Total : 3 weeks
Paper filing works better for AP at TSC.
( I had a bad experience when I E-filed at TSC last time.)
My application received: Dec 2
Check cashes: Dec 7
Status: Initial Review
Expedite Request file: Jan 14th
I paper filed AP at TSC on Dec 14 ( Renewal)
Check cashed on Dec 16
Ap received on Jan 9
Total : 3 weeks
Paper filing works better for AP at TSC.
( I had a bad experience when I E-filed at TSC last time.)
radhikac
12-21 02:56 AM
hi All,
I am on AP/EAD and need to Transit thru Paris in February. I have a confirmed return ticket and my visas have expired. I am currently in India.I called VFS and they told me that I do not need a transit visa however when I emailed them they responded by saying check with your Airline. I am trying to email the consulate in Mumbai but keep getting bounce backs.
However I found links on the Atlanta and Washigton consulates that say that I need a visa.
http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/article.php3?id_article=827
http://www.consulfrance-washington.org/article.php3?id_article=383
Has anyone returned to the US recently on a Advance Parole and expired Visa? and did you need a Transit visa? It would be great if you can tell when you returned. Immigrationvoice seems to be the only place where I could possibly get some real answers.
Apologizes if this thread is under the wrong category
Thanks
Radhika
I am on AP/EAD and need to Transit thru Paris in February. I have a confirmed return ticket and my visas have expired. I am currently in India.I called VFS and they told me that I do not need a transit visa however when I emailed them they responded by saying check with your Airline. I am trying to email the consulate in Mumbai but keep getting bounce backs.
However I found links on the Atlanta and Washigton consulates that say that I need a visa.
http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/article.php3?id_article=827
http://www.consulfrance-washington.org/article.php3?id_article=383
Has anyone returned to the US recently on a Advance Parole and expired Visa? and did you need a Transit visa? It would be great if you can tell when you returned. Immigrationvoice seems to be the only place where I could possibly get some real answers.
Apologizes if this thread is under the wrong category
Thanks
Radhika
Nabeel
10-26 09:37 AM
Hi Seniros
My 6th year h1b is expiring on April 30, 2008. I applied labor through PERM on October 1, 2007. How to stay legal in this country until approval of 140. Converting to F1 or B2 will cause any problems to green card process. Please advice.
Thank you
I am not quite clear on your question. Why would you convert from H1 to F1 or B2 ? I think you should extend your H1 in Mar or Apr 2008. Hopefully You will get your Labor approval by end of Nov or December and then you should be able to file for I140. If I am not mistaken you should be able to apply for three years extension on the basis of your I-140.
Nabeel
My 6th year h1b is expiring on April 30, 2008. I applied labor through PERM on October 1, 2007. How to stay legal in this country until approval of 140. Converting to F1 or B2 will cause any problems to green card process. Please advice.
Thank you
I am not quite clear on your question. Why would you convert from H1 to F1 or B2 ? I think you should extend your H1 in Mar or Apr 2008. Hopefully You will get your Labor approval by end of Nov or December and then you should be able to file for I140. If I am not mistaken you should be able to apply for three years extension on the basis of your I-140.
Nabeel
dc2007
07-25 12:06 PM
Thanks a lot for the help and useful information.
I can get all letters (of employment etc) from my employer. That is not an issue.
But do I need any other docuuments for I-140/labor etc., other than I-140 receipt number ?
I can get all letters (of employment etc) from my employer. That is not an issue.
But do I need any other docuuments for I-140/labor etc., other than I-140 receipt number ?
No comments:
Post a Comment