Jimi_Hendrix
11-28 10:21 AM
Just because you get more visa numbers does not guarantee gc. USCIS efficiency is going down the drain.
wallpaper sunset-at-kappad-each.jpg
MetteBB
05-11 01:20 PM
Hey thx!
Guess what -The appel (know I miss-spelled it) I accedently deleted... I'm such an as$ :whistle:
/mette
Guess what -The appel (know I miss-spelled it) I accedently deleted... I'm such an as$ :whistle:
/mette
GreenCard4US
08-21 12:25 PM
I received an RFE from USCIS 10 days after the date on the letter and need to respond in 33 days.
I came to US through Company A in June 2007 and was with them until Dec 2006. This Company A had applied for my labor and I140 and both of them were approved through them. I joined Company B in Jan of 2007(change of H1) and was with them until April of 2007. I joined Company C in April 2007(change of H1) and been with them since. Company C would not do my GC.
During the July 2007 fiasco, Company A agreed to give me an offer letter that I submitted with my 485 application and my attorney (a good reputed one) mentioned in the application that I was working for company C.
I got an RFE now stating that I did not send my sealed medical exam which I had done and we have a scan of what was sent. They also want �a current letter of employment attesting to your offer of proposed employment. This letter should be written on the company�s official letterhead and cite the date you will begin working, whether the position is temporary or permanent , a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and offered salary�
Is this RFE bad? What might have triggered this RFW? Now my attorney suggests that since I had filed 485 through company A and I did not really invoke AC21 that I should give a new offer letter from Company A (they are willing to give one). My question is if I do that will there be further questions? The company I work for is a bigger one and Company A is really a body shopper, so I want to go with the letter from the current company. Also since it more than 2 years since I applied for 485 can I say I invoked AC 21? When can I disassociate myself from company A as I do not want to lose my current job.
I would like the attorneys or the members valuable help. Please do offer your opinions. Thank you all in advance.
__________________
I came to US through Company A in June 2007 and was with them until Dec 2006. This Company A had applied for my labor and I140 and both of them were approved through them. I joined Company B in Jan of 2007(change of H1) and was with them until April of 2007. I joined Company C in April 2007(change of H1) and been with them since. Company C would not do my GC.
During the July 2007 fiasco, Company A agreed to give me an offer letter that I submitted with my 485 application and my attorney (a good reputed one) mentioned in the application that I was working for company C.
I got an RFE now stating that I did not send my sealed medical exam which I had done and we have a scan of what was sent. They also want �a current letter of employment attesting to your offer of proposed employment. This letter should be written on the company�s official letterhead and cite the date you will begin working, whether the position is temporary or permanent , a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and offered salary�
Is this RFE bad? What might have triggered this RFW? Now my attorney suggests that since I had filed 485 through company A and I did not really invoke AC21 that I should give a new offer letter from Company A (they are willing to give one). My question is if I do that will there be further questions? The company I work for is a bigger one and Company A is really a body shopper, so I want to go with the letter from the current company. Also since it more than 2 years since I applied for 485 can I say I invoked AC 21? When can I disassociate myself from company A as I do not want to lose my current job.
I would like the attorneys or the members valuable help. Please do offer your opinions. Thank you all in advance.
__________________
2011 Beach Sunset Wedding CD Labels
snathan
02-22 01:00 PM
Yes, in my case we wouldn't be using the experience gained with the current employer as I already have the required 1 year experience before joining the employer.
My fear is that DOL/USCIS would come back and say hey you have almost the same requirement for both the positions, why does one require only MS+1 while the other accepts BS+3..
Its a valid point. If its more or less the same description of the job...you will have hard time to convince the USCIS. Most likely the PERM will be approved and you will face issues during EB2 - I-140.
My fear is that DOL/USCIS would come back and say hey you have almost the same requirement for both the positions, why does one require only MS+1 while the other accepts BS+3..
Its a valid point. If its more or less the same description of the job...you will have hard time to convince the USCIS. Most likely the PERM will be approved and you will face issues during EB2 - I-140.
more...
stucklabor
02-04 04:51 PM
Behind Bush's New Stress on Science, Lobbying by Republican Executives
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: February 2, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 1 � President Bush's proposal to accelerate spending on basic scientific research came after technology industry executives made the case for such a move in a series of meetings with White House officials, executives involved said Wednesday.
In his State of the Union message Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush called for a doubling within 10 years of the federal commitment to "the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences."
The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, said Mr. Bush would request $910 million for the first year of the research initiative, with a commitment to spending $50 billion over 10 years.
Computer scientists have expressed alarm that federal support for basic research is being eroded by shifts toward applied research and shorter-term financing. But in his speech, Mr. Bush pointed to work in supercomputing, nanotechnology and alternative energy sources � subjects that were favorites in the Clinton administration but had not been priorities for the current White House.
What was different this year, according to a number of Capitol Hill lobbyists and Silicon Valley executives, was support on the issue by Republican corporate executives like Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, and John Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems.
Industry officials eager to see a greater government commitment to research held a series of discussions with administration officials late last year that culminated in two meetings in the Old Executive Office Building on Dec. 13.
There, a group led by Mr. Barrett and Norman R. Augustine, a former Lockheed Martin chief executive, met with Vice President Dick Cheney. A second group headed by Charles M. Vest, the former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, met with Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The industry and science leaders told the officials that the administration needed to respond to concerns laid out in a report by a National Academy of Sciences panel headed by Mr. Augustine. It warned of a rapid erosion in science, technology and education that threatened American economic competitiveness.
The report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future," has been circulating in draft form since October. It was put together by a group of top technology and science leaders, who say the country faces a crisis that the Bush administration is ignoring.
"The gravitas of that group," Dr. Vest said, "has a lot to do with how we got as far as we did."
Still, even after the meetings, the executives and educators were not certain that the administration would respond. So President Bush's proposal on Tuesday night came as something of a surprise.
Albert H. Teich, director of science policy for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest professional organization for scientists, called Mr. Bush's proposal "a breath of fresh air."
"We haven't seen this interest in basic research from this president before," Mr. Teich said. "We in the science community have talked about the state of basic research for quite a while, with its flat or declining budgets, and we are hopeful about this initiative."
Mr. Barrett of Intel, according to people who worked with him, had grown particularly frustrated with the lack of progress on the matter.
In a speech to the National Academy of Engineering in October, in which he described the findings of the Gathering Storm report, Mr. Barrett said: "If you look at the achievement of the average 12th-grade student in math and science, which is of interest to us here, that 12th-grader in the U.S. ranks in the bottom 10 percent among their international peers. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to look at that report and help raise our voices collectively to our local officials, state officials and national officials."
The executives said that the administration had also been induced to respond by a growing bipartisan movement in Congress supporting basic research and education.
Two bills tackling this matter have recently been introduced. One is the Protect America's Competitive Edge Act, by Senators Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico; Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico; Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee; and Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland. A similar bill was introduced by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut. Several of the senators met with President Bush in December to encourage him to support the competitiveness legislation.
"We're excited the president has jump-started this and that it is very bipartisan," Dr. Vest said.
Now the technologists and the educators are waiting to see the specifics of the financing when the president's budget is introduced next week. The report had called for an annual 10 percent increase over the next 10 years, and several executives said they now expected a rise of 7 percent annually, putting annual spending around twice the current level in 10 years.
Peter A. Freeman, the National Science Foundation's assistant director for computer and information science and engineering, said the president's initiative would make a big difference.
"We're obviously not at liberty to say what will be in the president's budget next week," Mr. Freeman said, "but we're very hopeful based on the State of the Union address. This is a strong sign that this administration will continue to be very supportive of fundamental science and engineering."
Despite there being little detail yet with precise figures, even those who had been publicly critical of the administration were enthusiastic.
"This is really a huge deal and I'm very encouraged," said David A. Patterson, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is president of the Association for Computing Machinery, a professional group.
At the same time, though, Mr. Patterson was concerned that the president's proposal to double funds for basic research drew little applause from the Congressional audience on Tuesday night. "It just shows the challenge we have," he said. "It wasn't obvious to the legislators."
Warren E. Leary contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: February 2, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 1 � President Bush's proposal to accelerate spending on basic scientific research came after technology industry executives made the case for such a move in a series of meetings with White House officials, executives involved said Wednesday.
In his State of the Union message Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush called for a doubling within 10 years of the federal commitment to "the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences."
The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, said Mr. Bush would request $910 million for the first year of the research initiative, with a commitment to spending $50 billion over 10 years.
Computer scientists have expressed alarm that federal support for basic research is being eroded by shifts toward applied research and shorter-term financing. But in his speech, Mr. Bush pointed to work in supercomputing, nanotechnology and alternative energy sources � subjects that were favorites in the Clinton administration but had not been priorities for the current White House.
What was different this year, according to a number of Capitol Hill lobbyists and Silicon Valley executives, was support on the issue by Republican corporate executives like Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, and John Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems.
Industry officials eager to see a greater government commitment to research held a series of discussions with administration officials late last year that culminated in two meetings in the Old Executive Office Building on Dec. 13.
There, a group led by Mr. Barrett and Norman R. Augustine, a former Lockheed Martin chief executive, met with Vice President Dick Cheney. A second group headed by Charles M. Vest, the former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, met with Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The industry and science leaders told the officials that the administration needed to respond to concerns laid out in a report by a National Academy of Sciences panel headed by Mr. Augustine. It warned of a rapid erosion in science, technology and education that threatened American economic competitiveness.
The report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future," has been circulating in draft form since October. It was put together by a group of top technology and science leaders, who say the country faces a crisis that the Bush administration is ignoring.
"The gravitas of that group," Dr. Vest said, "has a lot to do with how we got as far as we did."
Still, even after the meetings, the executives and educators were not certain that the administration would respond. So President Bush's proposal on Tuesday night came as something of a surprise.
Albert H. Teich, director of science policy for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest professional organization for scientists, called Mr. Bush's proposal "a breath of fresh air."
"We haven't seen this interest in basic research from this president before," Mr. Teich said. "We in the science community have talked about the state of basic research for quite a while, with its flat or declining budgets, and we are hopeful about this initiative."
Mr. Barrett of Intel, according to people who worked with him, had grown particularly frustrated with the lack of progress on the matter.
In a speech to the National Academy of Engineering in October, in which he described the findings of the Gathering Storm report, Mr. Barrett said: "If you look at the achievement of the average 12th-grade student in math and science, which is of interest to us here, that 12th-grader in the U.S. ranks in the bottom 10 percent among their international peers. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to look at that report and help raise our voices collectively to our local officials, state officials and national officials."
The executives said that the administration had also been induced to respond by a growing bipartisan movement in Congress supporting basic research and education.
Two bills tackling this matter have recently been introduced. One is the Protect America's Competitive Edge Act, by Senators Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico; Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico; Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee; and Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland. A similar bill was introduced by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut. Several of the senators met with President Bush in December to encourage him to support the competitiveness legislation.
"We're excited the president has jump-started this and that it is very bipartisan," Dr. Vest said.
Now the technologists and the educators are waiting to see the specifics of the financing when the president's budget is introduced next week. The report had called for an annual 10 percent increase over the next 10 years, and several executives said they now expected a rise of 7 percent annually, putting annual spending around twice the current level in 10 years.
Peter A. Freeman, the National Science Foundation's assistant director for computer and information science and engineering, said the president's initiative would make a big difference.
"We're obviously not at liberty to say what will be in the president's budget next week," Mr. Freeman said, "but we're very hopeful based on the State of the Union address. This is a strong sign that this administration will continue to be very supportive of fundamental science and engineering."
Despite there being little detail yet with precise figures, even those who had been publicly critical of the administration were enthusiastic.
"This is really a huge deal and I'm very encouraged," said David A. Patterson, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is president of the Association for Computing Machinery, a professional group.
At the same time, though, Mr. Patterson was concerned that the president's proposal to double funds for basic research drew little applause from the Congressional audience on Tuesday night. "It just shows the challenge we have," he said. "It wasn't obvious to the legislators."
Warren E. Leary contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
Caliber
05-25 06:13 AM
Fax Sent
more...
logiclife
09-28 09:56 PM
Hello Guys,
Does any one here has Newark NJ as their ASC? Reason is my notice date is august 27th from TSC and I haven't received my FP notice yet. My wife has the similar issue as well. I've called USCIS atleast twice but they are not ready to open service request and are saying that the ASC must be busy.
I wanted to find out if any one of you here has notice date after august 27th and have already got FP notice from Newark (NJ) ASC.
Thanks.
Please title your threads appropriately. Your thread title was "Newark NJ ASC". What does it mean? I have corrected it.
It not only is easy on other people's eyes, but you would do yourself a favor and draw more responses to questions you have if you ask the question in titles because the title appears on the homepage and seen by around 600-1000 people at any time.
Everyone, despite requests, people start new threads titled :"Please help" or "RFE" or "Question" or "140" or "I485".
What is so difficult about framing a short question and putting it as thread title?
Does any one here has Newark NJ as their ASC? Reason is my notice date is august 27th from TSC and I haven't received my FP notice yet. My wife has the similar issue as well. I've called USCIS atleast twice but they are not ready to open service request and are saying that the ASC must be busy.
I wanted to find out if any one of you here has notice date after august 27th and have already got FP notice from Newark (NJ) ASC.
Thanks.
Please title your threads appropriately. Your thread title was "Newark NJ ASC". What does it mean? I have corrected it.
It not only is easy on other people's eyes, but you would do yourself a favor and draw more responses to questions you have if you ask the question in titles because the title appears on the homepage and seen by around 600-1000 people at any time.
Everyone, despite requests, people start new threads titled :"Please help" or "RFE" or "Question" or "140" or "I485".
What is so difficult about framing a short question and putting it as thread title?
2010 Laguna Beach Sunset
papajon
06-18 02:39 PM
I have gone through the same situation. My lawyer appealed with the original paper advertizement and my perm was cleared about one and half years later. I don't see any issue here as long as your employer has followed all the perm steps. Good Luck.
Thanks. Makes me feel better. Sound like your case is similar to mine - newspaper advertisement issue.
Thanks. Makes me feel better. Sound like your case is similar to mine - newspaper advertisement issue.
more...
chanduv23
11-26 02:00 PM
Folks - due to an unforeseen emergency Attorney Prashanthi Reddy was not able to make it on November 20th to IV chat.
The next IV Chat with Attorney Prashanthi Reddy will be on Thursday, December 4th at 9.30 PM EST.
If there is any change that I know of, I will post it on this thread
The next IV Chat with Attorney Prashanthi Reddy will be on Thursday, December 4th at 9.30 PM EST.
If there is any change that I know of, I will post it on this thread
hair the each on our island
fromnaija
10-01 06:27 PM
If you did ask for a fee waiver could you check that you entered the right receipt number? This could be someone else's case as I don't think you would qualify for a fee waiver.
Anybody ..any replies ??
Anybody ..any replies ??
more...
SNLive999
06-11 07:32 PM
Again Thanks Dhun Dhun.
My worry is if they dont give me anything in writing tomorrow and down the lane if uscis (god forbid ) denies/abonden our 485 based on this new notices saying we did not give our FP's, then How to manage that.
My worry is if they dont give me anything in writing tomorrow and down the lane if uscis (god forbid ) denies/abonden our 485 based on this new notices saying we did not give our FP's, then How to manage that.
hot Sunset over Beach - Newport
shana04
05-18 05:41 PM
did you receive one rfe for both cases or one each for each case?
two seperate RFE one for each
two seperate RFE one for each
more...
house on our new Beach Sunset
eb3_nepa
04-29 08:35 PM
Where did you get this info? Could you please point out a reference that says so?
Good point, is that really against the law?
Good point, is that really against the law?
tattoo The each is crowded as we
sgupta33
09-20 09:21 AM
The rally and some of IV's requests was mentioned on NPR this morning by their econmic correspondent. The piece did a good job of differentiating between legal high skilled and illegal immigrants and also in highlighting some of our concerns and requests for legal remedy.
more...
pictures Always Kiss Sunset Beach
spec1968
10-26 01:03 PM
It is difficult to obatain approved vacation from my employer.
Apartment from leaving the country and recapturing, are there any alternatives.
Please advice
Apartment from leaving the country and recapturing, are there any alternatives.
Please advice
dresses Sunset beach
panky72
06-05 09:31 PM
Hi,
I Applied H1b 8th Year Extension on Jan 9th. Still waiting Anybody has this kind of situation? my Case number Starts with WAC
I Applied my H1b extn on Jan 9th , and i went to India on 18th Jan and came back on 18th Feb using my AP is this could be cause for the delay.
Please share your experiences and ideas
Thank You,
Raj.
I applied for H1b 6th yr extension on march 15th and I got approval notice on may 22nd. I also applied at CSC.
I Applied H1b 8th Year Extension on Jan 9th. Still waiting Anybody has this kind of situation? my Case number Starts with WAC
I Applied my H1b extn on Jan 9th , and i went to India on 18th Jan and came back on 18th Feb using my AP is this could be cause for the delay.
Please share your experiences and ideas
Thank You,
Raj.
I applied for H1b 6th yr extension on march 15th and I got approval notice on may 22nd. I also applied at CSC.
more...
makeup Sunset Beach. We went on a
pd052009
09-13 02:55 PM
I think your postings in EB3-EB2 discussions made you infamous.
girlfriend sunset on Cliffoney each
smartboy75
11-06 05:57 PM
Who issued the checks ?? Was it you or your employer ?
hairstyles looking for Sunset Beach
sudhendra
07-09 08:42 AM
I am part of july fiasco and mine was sent on June 3oth to be reached by July 2nd at 10:25 am received by barrett.
:confused:
:confused:
haid750
12-13 01:03 AM
my story is something like dhirajs98 but i dont know if he had the biometries done or not but we got the biometries, fingerprinting done but now my online status says that they mailed me a decision for i140 and i485, but does it mean a denial, please respond.
permfiling
10-28 05:20 PM
How long did it take for the I-797 after the approval of 485? Which service center was this at?
It took about 4 days. Mine was filed at CSC and transferred to Nebraska Service Center
It took about 4 days. Mine was filed at CSC and transferred to Nebraska Service Center
No comments:
Post a Comment