dealsnet
09-08 12:40 PM
I don't know about them. Any way free is free, till they ask for money.
BETTER CALL FROM WORK PHONE, IF YOU ARE NOT FEELING SAFE.
If they want our number for telemarketing, do the following.
If you think the number is used for telemarketing people,
dial *67 before you dial that number so it will block your caller id.
OR
you can go via Google Voice, as your Google Voice number will be displayed to the Telemarketers and not your own number!
One big question:
Who runs this free calling service?
There is no contact information or legal disclaimers. It is just a one page website.
BTW I tried and it worked. But these questions are important to know this is not a fishy site or what their true goal of providing this free call is.
BETTER CALL FROM WORK PHONE, IF YOU ARE NOT FEELING SAFE.
If they want our number for telemarketing, do the following.
If you think the number is used for telemarketing people,
dial *67 before you dial that number so it will block your caller id.
OR
you can go via Google Voice, as your Google Voice number will be displayed to the Telemarketers and not your own number!
One big question:
Who runs this free calling service?
There is no contact information or legal disclaimers. It is just a one page website.
BTW I tried and it worked. But these questions are important to know this is not a fishy site or what their true goal of providing this free call is.
wallpaper 2011 ell amp; nikki running
Jim
January 5th, 2005, 08:27 PM
Very nice, Freddy. I like what you have done with this image. The red is perfect.
bujji_d
10-12 04:33 AM
Dear experts.. Need your advise..
I stayed in US for full 5 years on L1-B. After 5 years period I applied for H1-B and returned to Inida on 1-Jan-07. And I got H1-B in lottery. Below are my queries
1) My I-797 says that its valid for only one year till October 2008. What could be the reason. (Because I stayed 5 years in US? )
2) So is it advisable to go to stamping after 1-Jan-08? Or can I go for stamping now? I don't want to be in a situtation where I'll b given Visa till Jan'08?
3) Now my company wants to apply for L1-A. What happens to my current H1-B if L1 is applied?
Assuming applying L1 is not going to be invalidate my H1 papers,
4) If I go for L1 stamping, will it invalidate my H1-B papers?
5) If I come to US on L1, is it possible to change status to H1?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
I stayed in US for full 5 years on L1-B. After 5 years period I applied for H1-B and returned to Inida on 1-Jan-07. And I got H1-B in lottery. Below are my queries
1) My I-797 says that its valid for only one year till October 2008. What could be the reason. (Because I stayed 5 years in US? )
2) So is it advisable to go to stamping after 1-Jan-08? Or can I go for stamping now? I don't want to be in a situtation where I'll b given Visa till Jan'08?
3) Now my company wants to apply for L1-A. What happens to my current H1-B if L1 is applied?
Assuming applying L1 is not going to be invalidate my H1 papers,
4) If I go for L1 stamping, will it invalidate my H1-B papers?
5) If I come to US on L1, is it possible to change status to H1?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
2011 ell amp; nikki running scared
kenpat
03-09 07:57 PM
Guys I hear you all. If you want to do something about it go to the thread 'US Housing Crisis and Employment based Green Card issues'
My original post there was
I think we should do something contrary to what everyone else is suggesting. I have been reading a lot of posts on here iv and other sites where there is talk of us shelling x amount of dollars or buying a house as a solution to help the economy which is a good thing. However on the same posts I also see contrarian views saying the economy is in bad shape and they will never want to add more immigrants its a political thing. Some of them suggested that since we have all our savings in this country with the banks and the institutions they are not going to get an added benefit other than buying up of the houses and inventory which no one wants I guess. My contrarian view is this:
We sign a proposal and send it to the congress to act on eb cases or whatever we want them to and if they dont then the immigration community should start sending back dollars to their home country. We need massive campaign and support. Think about this estimates are about 800k are waiting in labor, eb or 485 stage if we send $1000 every week from the banks institutions in the US to our own country banks it will deplete the banks reserves by 800 mln every week. How long do you think they will want this to continue in the face of a falling economy and banks with limited funds.
Another thought that comes to mind is everyone takes a day off every month on one day.
Gandhiji taught us something non cooperation and maybe thats the way forward.
Thoughts opinions are welcome�
Here are my latest comments there:
I dont know if you guys watch cnbc but there was a debate today on whether foreign workers should be allowed and one of the Guests Vivek Wadhwa a Professor at the Duke Univ in North carolina said if we let them go back can you imagine the money from Citi and Bank of america going with them and there will be a run on those banks, exactly what I have been saying they cannot afford a run on the banks. All we NEED is collective action otherwise we are all DOOMED at different times even if your 485 is pending they are finding ways to block your GC process if that is not yet evident. Join the gang or Good luck!!!
My original post there was
I think we should do something contrary to what everyone else is suggesting. I have been reading a lot of posts on here iv and other sites where there is talk of us shelling x amount of dollars or buying a house as a solution to help the economy which is a good thing. However on the same posts I also see contrarian views saying the economy is in bad shape and they will never want to add more immigrants its a political thing. Some of them suggested that since we have all our savings in this country with the banks and the institutions they are not going to get an added benefit other than buying up of the houses and inventory which no one wants I guess. My contrarian view is this:
We sign a proposal and send it to the congress to act on eb cases or whatever we want them to and if they dont then the immigration community should start sending back dollars to their home country. We need massive campaign and support. Think about this estimates are about 800k are waiting in labor, eb or 485 stage if we send $1000 every week from the banks institutions in the US to our own country banks it will deplete the banks reserves by 800 mln every week. How long do you think they will want this to continue in the face of a falling economy and banks with limited funds.
Another thought that comes to mind is everyone takes a day off every month on one day.
Gandhiji taught us something non cooperation and maybe thats the way forward.
Thoughts opinions are welcome�
Here are my latest comments there:
I dont know if you guys watch cnbc but there was a debate today on whether foreign workers should be allowed and one of the Guests Vivek Wadhwa a Professor at the Duke Univ in North carolina said if we let them go back can you imagine the money from Citi and Bank of america going with them and there will be a run on those banks, exactly what I have been saying they cannot afford a run on the banks. All we NEED is collective action otherwise we are all DOOMED at different times even if your 485 is pending they are finding ways to block your GC process if that is not yet evident. Join the gang or Good luck!!!
more...
jnraajan
01-18 10:54 AM
You cannot become a Canadian Citizen, just because you are on H1 in the US. The only advantage is you can apply for Permanent Residency from the US, which is much faster than applying from India. Once, you get your Green Card, you still should maintain residency in Canda, before you apply for Citizenship.
Ria, You can apply for Canadian Permanent Residency by urself. You dont need to hire people to do it. I did it by myself, and it is very easy.
Ria, You can apply for Canadian Permanent Residency by urself. You dont need to hire people to do it. I did it by myself, and it is very easy.
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.
more...
chunky
07-26 03:21 PM
We are planning to go India in October (after receipt of 185). If I apply for change of status it will be cancelled because she left country before aprooval".
I was thinking if we do not get AP by then she can go to embassy and request for H4 visa. Will it be fine. I am asking too many questions
Quote"As far as I know, if a 485 is pending, a person can continue to be in the US without a visa. So she would not require a H-4.
All the same, I would still get a H-4 as this will be advantageous as,
1. Your receipt has not yet arrived. What if the Application is rejected for initial evidence problem?
2. AP takes a long time to come and she has to make an urgent trip back home?
3. 485 gets denied by mistake. She has to have a valid status to fall back on, so you can file motion to reopen, etc.
The chances of any of the above happening are low, but it is better to anticipate trouble and be as prepared as we can."
I was thinking if we do not get AP by then she can go to embassy and request for H4 visa. Will it be fine. I am asking too many questions
Quote"As far as I know, if a 485 is pending, a person can continue to be in the US without a visa. So she would not require a H-4.
All the same, I would still get a H-4 as this will be advantageous as,
1. Your receipt has not yet arrived. What if the Application is rejected for initial evidence problem?
2. AP takes a long time to come and she has to make an urgent trip back home?
3. 485 gets denied by mistake. She has to have a valid status to fall back on, so you can file motion to reopen, etc.
The chances of any of the above happening are low, but it is better to anticipate trouble and be as prepared as we can."
2010 ell amp; nikki running scared
raj2007
02-18 07:12 PM
i did. different lawyers said different thing so i do not know who is right and who is wrong.
should i make an infopass appointment and idscusss it with them?
I will better wait for my I-485 approval than taking the risk. Infopass will not help much b/c everything will depend on Port of entry.
should i make an infopass appointment and idscusss it with them?
I will better wait for my I-485 approval than taking the risk. Infopass will not help much b/c everything will depend on Port of entry.
more...
vnandster
04-13 01:12 AM
Only my lawyer got the RFE - We didn't.
hair ell amp; nikki running scared azerbaijan lyrics. ell amp; nikki running scared
jnraajan
03-20 05:19 PM
The best time for seeing any good result for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of 2008. Precisely, from Nov-02-2008 till the day, the new president swears in.
If you go through the records of the past presidencies, you can see one interesting thing: Whenever the presidency changes from one person to another, that period is the best to make any sweeping changes that can be done administratively. Bill clinton passed many executive orders during the last 1.5 months of his presidency. The reason for this is: the ruling party will not oppose this as the election is over. The new president will also not oppose this as the election is over and the bad blood of any of this action will not fall on him as well. On top of that, the new president need not address any contentious issues as an initiative from his side. If the old president started something, he could always portray that, he is making the situation better.
The best example for this kind of presidential action: There is a proposal from many parts of the political spectrum to lift the cuban embargo. No one is ready to do that as everyone is scared how it will affect them. If the passing president does this during the last 1.5 months, the blame will only fall on the president and it will not fall on the party or the opposition or on the new president. At the same time, the passing president will be portrayed in the history as someone who did some sweeping change.
Once the new president swears in, he won't be in a position to do sweeping changes as there is always a concern for second term, approval rating etc etc.
Well, the best time for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of this year, after Nov 2.
It is true what you are saying, but only partially. The outgoing President cannot change the laws. He can only do what could be an administrative fix. So, lobbying for these administrative fixes is the campaign that we already started. Hopefully, The President can do that.
If you go through the records of the past presidencies, you can see one interesting thing: Whenever the presidency changes from one person to another, that period is the best to make any sweeping changes that can be done administratively. Bill clinton passed many executive orders during the last 1.5 months of his presidency. The reason for this is: the ruling party will not oppose this as the election is over. The new president will also not oppose this as the election is over and the bad blood of any of this action will not fall on him as well. On top of that, the new president need not address any contentious issues as an initiative from his side. If the old president started something, he could always portray that, he is making the situation better.
The best example for this kind of presidential action: There is a proposal from many parts of the political spectrum to lift the cuban embargo. No one is ready to do that as everyone is scared how it will affect them. If the passing president does this during the last 1.5 months, the blame will only fall on the president and it will not fall on the party or the opposition or on the new president. At the same time, the passing president will be portrayed in the history as someone who did some sweeping change.
Once the new president swears in, he won't be in a position to do sweeping changes as there is always a concern for second term, approval rating etc etc.
Well, the best time for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of this year, after Nov 2.
It is true what you are saying, but only partially. The outgoing President cannot change the laws. He can only do what could be an administrative fix. So, lobbying for these administrative fixes is the campaign that we already started. Hopefully, The President can do that.
more...
sumansk
09-26 04:52 PM
Same thing with me.. every time I call they say wait 90 days.Even I tried to tell them that its more than 90 days old that I sent..without luck...
Thanks
Thanks
hot makeup Ell/Nikki - Running
jonty_11
08-15 12:47 PM
Thre is a lot of hurt on these forums related to substituted labor..so help will be slow to come.
more...
house ell amp; nikki running scared azerbaijan lyrics. ell amp; nikki running scared
gc_75
07-17 08:00 PM
How did you file the AOS with company A when you are not working for that company any more? You need to attach the employment letter from Company A along with I-485 application.
For applying with Company B, you need to have fresh a PERM Labor approved from Company B.
Hope this helps.
I have a unique situation and I would really appreciate if someone can answer.
My LC and 140 was approved (March 2006) for Company A when I was working there on H1. After retrogration I changed jobs (November 2006) and went to work for Company B. My lawyer said we can apply for AOS using the approved 140 from company A. I did send the application which reached there on July 2nd. Now, do I have to go and work for Company A (which actually is not an option any more)? Or I can keep working for Company B and if 180 days are passed since the filing/receipt date I will be safe to obtain the GC? Company B is ready to start a new process for GC but if I can use the previously approved 140 and get AOS/GC approved, I really would like to do that.
Please help...:confused:
For applying with Company B, you need to have fresh a PERM Labor approved from Company B.
Hope this helps.
I have a unique situation and I would really appreciate if someone can answer.
My LC and 140 was approved (March 2006) for Company A when I was working there on H1. After retrogration I changed jobs (November 2006) and went to work for Company B. My lawyer said we can apply for AOS using the approved 140 from company A. I did send the application which reached there on July 2nd. Now, do I have to go and work for Company A (which actually is not an option any more)? Or I can keep working for Company B and if 180 days are passed since the filing/receipt date I will be safe to obtain the GC? Company B is ready to start a new process for GC but if I can use the previously approved 140 and get AOS/GC approved, I really would like to do that.
Please help...:confused:
tattoo ell amp; nikki running scared
sgupta33
03-20 03:56 PM
bump
more...
pictures ell amp; nikki running scared
eb3_nepa
11-10 12:27 AM
And shat exactly is the point of this discussion again? More ranting?
You know, maybe few people have noticed this, but when it comes to selecting the "lawyer", you have to pay, if you want your own lawyer. A lot of ppl are very happy that the company pays. So people want their cake and eat it too. They want the company to pay for the lawyer, BUT BUT they want the lawyer to work for them and even let them, when they can leave the employer without negatively affecting their GC process.
The problem is not just the lawyers or the HR ppl guys. The problem is also partly US. If we were to insist that WE pay for the process and we hire our own lawyers, we would have a LOT more control on the process. However, I understand that not all of us have that option, but then those of us who do not have that option, have to thank their stars that they did not end up paying close to $10K for this whole process. Face the facts guys, if your company is paying ur lawyer, ur lawyer is working for them NOT you. Your company and NOT you is the lawyer's client, so he is LEGALLY REQUIRED to serve them and NOT you.
We curse the USCIS everyday (I do too), but we have to admit, they have done an EXCELLENT job these past few months and almost everyone I know has received their EADs, APs and FP notices within the stipulated 90 day period. Let us commend the USCIS for that. We criticized and cursed them when the the time had come to do so. Now they have done a good job so let us commend them for it. Some USCIS centers are even doing actual finger printing on Saturdays (in the state of CT. My friend actually did his on a Saturday). They do not have to do any of this, BUT THEY ARE DOING IT.
About HR, again we all hate them, but they do the best they can. Ah what the heck i'll give you guys this one ;) Go ahead curse away :p. Although I will say this, some HR ppl are rather helpful. I have worked for 2 companies and touch wood both helped me a lot with paperwork and were quite prompt.
You know, maybe few people have noticed this, but when it comes to selecting the "lawyer", you have to pay, if you want your own lawyer. A lot of ppl are very happy that the company pays. So people want their cake and eat it too. They want the company to pay for the lawyer, BUT BUT they want the lawyer to work for them and even let them, when they can leave the employer without negatively affecting their GC process.
The problem is not just the lawyers or the HR ppl guys. The problem is also partly US. If we were to insist that WE pay for the process and we hire our own lawyers, we would have a LOT more control on the process. However, I understand that not all of us have that option, but then those of us who do not have that option, have to thank their stars that they did not end up paying close to $10K for this whole process. Face the facts guys, if your company is paying ur lawyer, ur lawyer is working for them NOT you. Your company and NOT you is the lawyer's client, so he is LEGALLY REQUIRED to serve them and NOT you.
We curse the USCIS everyday (I do too), but we have to admit, they have done an EXCELLENT job these past few months and almost everyone I know has received their EADs, APs and FP notices within the stipulated 90 day period. Let us commend the USCIS for that. We criticized and cursed them when the the time had come to do so. Now they have done a good job so let us commend them for it. Some USCIS centers are even doing actual finger printing on Saturdays (in the state of CT. My friend actually did his on a Saturday). They do not have to do any of this, BUT THEY ARE DOING IT.
About HR, again we all hate them, but they do the best they can. Ah what the heck i'll give you guys this one ;) Go ahead curse away :p. Although I will say this, some HR ppl are rather helpful. I have worked for 2 companies and touch wood both helped me a lot with paperwork and were quite prompt.
dresses ell amp; nikki running scared
sidm
03-29 07:34 PM
^^Who do we contact ....?
Anyways, it looks like it will be very difficult to do this for people who were forced back into Universities - to do this the current I-20 must be invalidated and a new one issued by the original institution from which the candidate graduated and got the OPT
Any ideas....?:confused:
Anyway there still might be some hope in the H1 lottery....
Anyways, it looks like it will be very difficult to do this for people who were forced back into Universities - to do this the current I-20 must be invalidated and a new one issued by the original institution from which the candidate graduated and got the OPT
Any ideas....?:confused:
Anyway there still might be some hope in the H1 lottery....
more...
makeup ell amp; nikki running scared
vegasbaby
02-19 07:06 PM
All,
Even though there are other threads on this topic, I wanted to start a separate thread, as I had some unique questions. I am at the zenith of frustration and at the age of 37, I feel like my career is slipping away while waiting for GC :(
My employment scenario:
- Been with the current employer since Jan 2001
- Less than 5 years experience before I joined the current employer
- Have an MBA that was not used to the GC application (applied in July 2003) since I was a programmer at the time of GC application
My GC scenario:
- Applied for GC in July 2003 under EB3
- Applied for I-485 in July 2007
- Approved I140 and EAD in hand
- Even though I have EAD, I continue to use my H1
My new role in the job:
- After being in the job for as long as I have been, I am now doing Business Development that makes use of my MBA
My questions:
1) Lawyer asked me to wait it out for the GC instead of trying to convert the application to GC2. Lawyer says new labor applications are getting under scrutiny a lot more than before and he think it is prudent to wait. Is this reasonable?
2) What are my other options - do you think I can ask my employer to apply fresh EB2 application for the business development role and show my MBA? Not sure if they will agree to my request, but wanted to make sure that it is even possible to do that.
3) Can I change my job based on H1? Or change the job based on EAD? If either way I change my job, can I then ask the new employer to apply for my GC under EB2? If I change the job, and if my current employer agrees (I don't why he would, but just for understanding sake), can I retain my current EB3 application?
Any advice is greatly appreciated. I am at a point of giving it up and going back to India, but then that is another big decision,
Regards,
I am also in the same boat as you. To ans your questions -
1. If the lawyer your talking abt is the company attorney, then, he would most likely support the company than you. I did hear that labors are going thru lot of scrutiny, but if your case is genuine & you have all relevant docs, why is there a reason to worry.
2. Well yes since you have the degree & if they have a role for you, I see no reason as to why they cannot file for you. A lot of companies including mine are not too keen on reapplying under EB2 since they feel it will cause unnecessary hassles to them. If your case is brought up under review, its not just you but the entire company gets audited & then they have to produce a million documents to USCIS.
3. You should be able to retain your old pd or current application (if I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) either ways i.e. if new employer files EB2 for you or your old employer does EB2 for you. However, as someone already pointed out, that same employer filing EB2 for you would be a tricky situation since the experience with your current employer doesn't count. But I have also read somewhere that if its a new position/a new role, then, your experience with current employer will also count. Get this verified.
Even though there are other threads on this topic, I wanted to start a separate thread, as I had some unique questions. I am at the zenith of frustration and at the age of 37, I feel like my career is slipping away while waiting for GC :(
My employment scenario:
- Been with the current employer since Jan 2001
- Less than 5 years experience before I joined the current employer
- Have an MBA that was not used to the GC application (applied in July 2003) since I was a programmer at the time of GC application
My GC scenario:
- Applied for GC in July 2003 under EB3
- Applied for I-485 in July 2007
- Approved I140 and EAD in hand
- Even though I have EAD, I continue to use my H1
My new role in the job:
- After being in the job for as long as I have been, I am now doing Business Development that makes use of my MBA
My questions:
1) Lawyer asked me to wait it out for the GC instead of trying to convert the application to GC2. Lawyer says new labor applications are getting under scrutiny a lot more than before and he think it is prudent to wait. Is this reasonable?
2) What are my other options - do you think I can ask my employer to apply fresh EB2 application for the business development role and show my MBA? Not sure if they will agree to my request, but wanted to make sure that it is even possible to do that.
3) Can I change my job based on H1? Or change the job based on EAD? If either way I change my job, can I then ask the new employer to apply for my GC under EB2? If I change the job, and if my current employer agrees (I don't why he would, but just for understanding sake), can I retain my current EB3 application?
Any advice is greatly appreciated. I am at a point of giving it up and going back to India, but then that is another big decision,
Regards,
I am also in the same boat as you. To ans your questions -
1. If the lawyer your talking abt is the company attorney, then, he would most likely support the company than you. I did hear that labors are going thru lot of scrutiny, but if your case is genuine & you have all relevant docs, why is there a reason to worry.
2. Well yes since you have the degree & if they have a role for you, I see no reason as to why they cannot file for you. A lot of companies including mine are not too keen on reapplying under EB2 since they feel it will cause unnecessary hassles to them. If your case is brought up under review, its not just you but the entire company gets audited & then they have to produce a million documents to USCIS.
3. You should be able to retain your old pd or current application (if I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) either ways i.e. if new employer files EB2 for you or your old employer does EB2 for you. However, as someone already pointed out, that same employer filing EB2 for you would be a tricky situation since the experience with your current employer doesn't count. But I have also read somewhere that if its a new position/a new role, then, your experience with current employer will also count. Get this verified.
girlfriend ell amp; nikki running scared
ivgclive
05-11 03:43 PM
Don't count on USCIS to do something to eliminate backlog. They are idiots and inefficient morons.
Please tell us what made yourself to file on NIW category.
Please tell us what made yourself to file on NIW category.
hairstyles ell amp; nikki running scared
kingkon_2000
03-26 11:16 AM
I had my EB2 LC rejected and the reason that DOL gave was they were not able to contact the employer and/or employer did not respond to their correspondence. Lawyer gave me two option to refile (I will lose PD) or appeal. This was in 2005 when PERM had just started and the lawyers said they did not know how long the appeal process takes in PERM since it was new system. To cut the story short I received the approved LC within 45days of appeal, but my case was a simple one I think. Your case it a bit different but in no case an appeal should take 1.5 years at least in PERM.
amits
10-09 11:55 AM
I will join as well.
santa123
03-09 09:46 PM
I know of an old time neighbor who had a similar story, only that it was not a dream but reality for him... he must be smiling at this post;)
