panini
03-15 01:24 PM
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
Berkeleybee
05-24 12:35 AM
Catching up after a long day -- excellent job Salil! Love the idea of using the poster in the photo.
best,
Berkeleybee
best,
Berkeleybee
logiclife
05-11 03:34 PM
Bkarnik,
We will definately take some pictures and post them here.
--Jay.
We will definately take some pictures and post them here.
--Jay.
Arjun
03-15 11:32 AM
I agree, I think you can recieve incentives, but you cannot work (as an employee) for a corporation other than the H1B sponsor. In any case, as long as you report all of your income you are fine. I do'nt think IRS checks your status to validate your income.
H1-B folks are permitted to have sources of passive income from entities other than their H1 sponsor. This includes bank interests, stock dividends, profits from stock transactions etc. Most of these incomes are taxable and reported to the IRS on 1099-INT or 1099-DIV forms. When you open a bank account and get a bonus of, say $200, it is considered as interest earned.
The vital point to remember, I guess, is that H1s are NOT allowed to generate an income from any source (other that H1 sponsor) that needs any tangible work to be done- investments do not count as tangible work.
H1-B folks are permitted to have sources of passive income from entities other than their H1 sponsor. This includes bank interests, stock dividends, profits from stock transactions etc. Most of these incomes are taxable and reported to the IRS on 1099-INT or 1099-DIV forms. When you open a bank account and get a bonus of, say $200, it is considered as interest earned.
The vital point to remember, I guess, is that H1s are NOT allowed to generate an income from any source (other that H1 sponsor) that needs any tangible work to be done- investments do not count as tangible work.
more...
gc_relief
03-06 01:25 PM
Guys this will be a good idea..If we can send a letter to Pres Obama like we did in the past..Let me know your thoughts..
chanduv23
10-09 10:35 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
minimalist
04-12 10:40 PM
Do we really need to attach a copy of the front page of the passport for AP renewal, wouldn't a copy of the DL be sufficient enough?
No need for passport front page.
No need for passport front page.
aarzoo
02-02 06:33 PM
@clockwork: Can you suggest some good lawyer(s).
more...
gc4me
01-17 01:52 PM
What documents do we need to provide the US Embassy/Consulate to issue a birth certificate. Please reply.
Go ahead and apply for a birth certificate from your nearest US Embassy/Consulate.
You will need one anyway when you do file I 485 or CP so might as well keep it ready now.
Go ahead and apply for a birth certificate from your nearest US Embassy/Consulate.
You will need one anyway when you do file I 485 or CP so might as well keep it ready now.
.jpg "amor eterno juan gabriel.")
zerozerozeven
03-25 10:46 AM
We are most fortunate, thanks to Mr. Bill Gates, Rep Smith's current bill will triple our h1b cap and it will pass. all 3 american candidates support us. we are winning:D:D:D
I remember this bill being brought up last year also and was "supposed" to be passed but never even came up for voting...why do u anticipate this will go through this time? My wife is applying for her "H1B" and she is awaiting the lotto results...
I strongly disapprove of ppl waiting for their GC voicing against H1B cap increase because they have crossed that bridge and have H1B. I am only safely assume such ppl will voice against IV and all IV activities once they receive their GC...
I remember this bill being brought up last year also and was "supposed" to be passed but never even came up for voting...why do u anticipate this will go through this time? My wife is applying for her "H1B" and she is awaiting the lotto results...
I strongly disapprove of ppl waiting for their GC voicing against H1B cap increase because they have crossed that bridge and have H1B. I am only safely assume such ppl will voice against IV and all IV activities once they receive their GC...
more...
cox
June 18th, 2005, 08:34 AM
I got brief but glorious light this morning. My skill was not up to the light, but I tried to make the most of it. Let me know what I did right or could have done better. Thanks!
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/931/medium/Sunrise_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/931/medium/Rainbow_BNP_rsm_C_061805.JPG (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Killdeer_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Avocet_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Stilt_Black-Necked_BNP_rsm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/931/medium/Sunrise_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/931/medium/Rainbow_BNP_rsm_C_061805.JPG (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Killdeer_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Avocet_BNP_sm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/887/medium/Stilt_Black-Necked_BNP_rsm_C_061805.jpg (javascript:;)
rajenk
08-19 04:25 PM
All,
To add to the question of doubt. I have received FP (Biometrics) appointment notice on Saturday!!
When USCIS will come out of this confused messy Spaghetti handling!!!
Thanks
Raj
To add to the question of doubt. I have received FP (Biometrics) appointment notice on Saturday!!
When USCIS will come out of this confused messy Spaghetti handling!!!
Thanks
Raj
more...
mkumar
10-09 11:46 AM
Great to see some activity in Arizona. I am in Phoenix and will show up for a meet and greet!
qasleuth
07-17 11:51 AM
Do you have a shred of evidence that the programs you quote do not bring in a cook or a dancer or a painter or a programmer ?
I got all these from your first post. What do you call them ?
"unskilled/low skill immigrants cause higher unemployment", "unskilled/low skilled immigration == jobs not created, remain uneployed", "DV / Family based immigration brings in unskilled/low skilled immigrants"
Look around and you will see anti-immigrants spewing this 'evidence' everywhere, from blogs, to news articles, to the senate, to bars. The same arguments are made against 'skilled' immigration which you and I belong to. What numbers do they quote ? Anecdotal nonsense everywhere.
Making yourself sound more skilled but making the same flawed arguments will get us nowhere. Bashing another group is plain BS.
Skilled = anyone having skills to remain employed (or provide healthy contribution to the economy) at that point of time
So this can be a cook, dancer, painter or a programmer - if the society or economy needs one. Tomorrow, if my programmer skills are no longer required for this economy and country then I can be categorized unskilled labor too.
I am sorry if I look biased. I have no such intentions as I made clear in my first post itself. All my intentions of discussion are based on the definition given above for the word "skilled".
I got all these from your first post. What do you call them ?
"unskilled/low skill immigrants cause higher unemployment", "unskilled/low skilled immigration == jobs not created, remain uneployed", "DV / Family based immigration brings in unskilled/low skilled immigrants"
Look around and you will see anti-immigrants spewing this 'evidence' everywhere, from blogs, to news articles, to the senate, to bars. The same arguments are made against 'skilled' immigration which you and I belong to. What numbers do they quote ? Anecdotal nonsense everywhere.
Making yourself sound more skilled but making the same flawed arguments will get us nowhere. Bashing another group is plain BS.
Skilled = anyone having skills to remain employed (or provide healthy contribution to the economy) at that point of time
So this can be a cook, dancer, painter or a programmer - if the society or economy needs one. Tomorrow, if my programmer skills are no longer required for this economy and country then I can be categorized unskilled labor too.
I am sorry if I look biased. I have no such intentions as I made clear in my first post itself. All my intentions of discussion are based on the definition given above for the word "skilled".
more...
singhsa3
11-15 10:47 AM
What a shame and Ignorant people we are trying to motivate...
gc_peshwa
04-14 02:14 PM
Please contact ashwin_27/nmdial/snathan to add you to the I485 filing initiative. Thanks. If many more like you could join the battle...we'd be victorious by now....
more...
Munna Bhai
12-14 10:16 AM
Well you can always get the Equivalence Certificate from know Evaluator. USCIS also uses few Evaluators� for various purposes. You should find one of those and get the Evaluation done by them. 3 year Indian degree is VERY MUCH equal to a 4 years BS degree in the US. It's very interesting they way these evaluators do it.
It is true that you can use evaluators but things may get tough very soon, hence my request to everyone is "be prepared" and do let us know.
It is true that you can use evaluators but things may get tough very soon, hence my request to everyone is "be prepared" and do let us know.
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
monkeyman
01-29 06:06 PM
Just sit tight - It will take them around 7 to 8 months to issue the GC. You should also receive the EAD card soon and hopefully it will be the last EAD Card.
telekinesis
10-20 07:52 AM
Get the educational version! Much cheaper and is fully functional!
gcdreamer05
07-03 02:01 PM
Please dont take risk travelling while the h1b petition is pending.
I would advice not to travel during this case.
I would advice not to travel during this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment