yetanotherguyinline
05-15 03:00 PM
If you are considering MBA please do these things before you decide.
1. Be absolutely sure why you want a MBA (have a specific reason like I want to move into ABC career or I want to do XYA in X years). Research the programs available and pick a program that suits your goals.
2. Talk to spectrum of people who have either achieved or on a patch to achieving ABC or XYZ you have identified in the above step. Find out how MBA helped them achieve their goals. Talk to people who have just finished MBA or in class right now along with people who have done MBA 10 years ago.
MBA is not just a degree, its much more than that. Depending on the program you get into, the brand and the networks can add far more value than what just a degree could have.
Disclaimer: I am enrolled in MBA program at Haas (University of California, Berkeley). So my views might be biased.
1. Be absolutely sure why you want a MBA (have a specific reason like I want to move into ABC career or I want to do XYA in X years). Research the programs available and pick a program that suits your goals.
2. Talk to spectrum of people who have either achieved or on a patch to achieving ABC or XYZ you have identified in the above step. Find out how MBA helped them achieve their goals. Talk to people who have just finished MBA or in class right now along with people who have done MBA 10 years ago.
MBA is not just a degree, its much more than that. Depending on the program you get into, the brand and the networks can add far more value than what just a degree could have.
Disclaimer: I am enrolled in MBA program at Haas (University of California, Berkeley). So my views might be biased.
wallpaper Imagenes+para+facebook
dummgelauft
08-21 09:28 AM
You are an illegal. Go back to Canada, and try properly.
smisachu
09-26 12:04 PM
Please, Have an open mind. Don't make statements like this. IV has people from across the globe and each country has its own issues. We are trying to deal with the issues in the US and lets focus on that and not drag in other countries as examples (good or bad).
Oh My God, CNN is screwing us in different way now. They are telling american people the Rally last week at SC was for increse in H1B and not for Incresed GCs.
I am getting freakled out by such American politics. I thought USA is different than INDIA atleast in this regard.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
Oh My God, CNN is screwing us in different way now. They are telling american people the Rally last week at SC was for increse in H1B and not for Incresed GCs.
I am getting freakled out by such American politics. I thought USA is different than INDIA atleast in this regard.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
2011 Imagenes+para+facebook
nomi
12-11 02:38 PM
[QUOTE=wildvoice]
Yes, I am definitely for this idea that we should petition/ask USCIS to change the rules to allow those with approved I-140 to be able to file I-485 while their PD is not yet current even if we would pay US$5,000.:rolleyes:
[QUOTE]
Yes, I am definitely for this idea that we should petition/ask USCIS to change the rules to allow those with approved I-140 to be able to file I-485 while their PD is not yet current even if we would pay US$5,000.:rolleyes:
[QUOTE]
more...
paskal
12-27 02:40 PM
if i'm travelling TO India and transiting through paris/london
and I have an Indian passport, WHY should I need to show a US Visa to avoid a transit visa? Does this make any sense? I'm not going to the US?????
and I have an Indian passport, WHY should I need to show a US Visa to avoid a transit visa? Does this make any sense? I'm not going to the US?????
amitjoey
01-18 05:26 PM
Thanks Pappu :D (Pappu, left a PM, pl reply. Wouldn't mind if you don't come back , you are busy. Thanks)
Several hundred members ... only about 50 posts !!
That's true, once it is posted on a web site, most likely many members of that site will come read the thread. How many will read, will go on increasing each day, east posting.
Extraordinary effort perm2gc and others, please keep it up !!
Members , give it a thought ... give a free gift, more the members ...best our efforts.
Thanks to all of you who are helping with this effort. 57 new members in the last 2 days and another 100 new last week. It has been very effective.
Several hundred members ... only about 50 posts !!
That's true, once it is posted on a web site, most likely many members of that site will come read the thread. How many will read, will go on increasing each day, east posting.
Extraordinary effort perm2gc and others, please keep it up !!
Members , give it a thought ... give a free gift, more the members ...best our efforts.
Thanks to all of you who are helping with this effort. 57 new members in the last 2 days and another 100 new last week. It has been very effective.
more...
smartboy75
07-11 12:47 PM
source: www.immigration-law.com
07/11/2008: Indian EB-2 Visa Number in Visa Bulletin August 2008 and Anticipated Expedited Adjudication of Their I-485 Applications to Prevent EB 2008 Visa Number Waste
The movement of the EB-2 visa numbers for Indians is indeed a very good news in that it sounds that the USCIS intends to take out the visa numbers for them before the end of September 2008 as best as they can and attempt to adjudicate the applications before the new fiscal year starts on October 1, 2008. Obviously, there must be a large number of EB-2 cases which were filed during the July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco whose priority date is June 1, 2006 or earlier date. It appears that the USCIS has been working hard to get these cases ready for adjudication while their visa numbers are availalbe so that the agency prevents the visa number for FY 2008 from being wasted. Please stay tuned to this web site for this remarkable turn of the events.
07/11/2008: Indian EB-2 Visa Number in Visa Bulletin August 2008 and Anticipated Expedited Adjudication of Their I-485 Applications to Prevent EB 2008 Visa Number Waste
The movement of the EB-2 visa numbers for Indians is indeed a very good news in that it sounds that the USCIS intends to take out the visa numbers for them before the end of September 2008 as best as they can and attempt to adjudicate the applications before the new fiscal year starts on October 1, 2008. Obviously, there must be a large number of EB-2 cases which were filed during the July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco whose priority date is June 1, 2006 or earlier date. It appears that the USCIS has been working hard to get these cases ready for adjudication while their visa numbers are availalbe so that the agency prevents the visa number for FY 2008 from being wasted. Please stay tuned to this web site for this remarkable turn of the events.
2010 9 Trucos para Facebook
milind70
05-05 06:07 PM
Hi friends,
Please advise me on this situation.
I am currently in US with L1B with Company A.
Company B has already filed H1B petition for me.
Assuming it gets selected & approved, Is it Possible for me to Continue with Company A after Oct1 2007 with the L1 itself.
Thanks.
I dont see any reason why you cant continue of L1 , as u would require to apply for change of status for to be on H1 and is provided your L1 is valid beyond Oct. I think you need to file Form I 539 to change the noimmigrant status for eg if u need to go from H4 to H1 then u file this form.
Please advise me on this situation.
I am currently in US with L1B with Company A.
Company B has already filed H1B petition for me.
Assuming it gets selected & approved, Is it Possible for me to Continue with Company A after Oct1 2007 with the L1 itself.
Thanks.
I dont see any reason why you cant continue of L1 , as u would require to apply for change of status for to be on H1 and is provided your L1 is valid beyond Oct. I think you need to file Form I 539 to change the noimmigrant status for eg if u need to go from H4 to H1 then u file this form.
more...
NKR
10-16 03:24 PM
So to put extensive blame on USCIS for the "reaction" (I assume you are talking about the backlogs) is not right.
Read your above sentence, then read your below sentence. If I try to find a relation between these two sentences I do not know what you are talking.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL�s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.
Read your above sentence, then read your below sentence. If I try to find a relation between these two sentences I do not know what you are talking.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL�s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.
hair una cuenta Facebook. Para
tooclose
07-13 07:14 AM
What is the need for all this ? The visa bulletin is out but no one cares to read it I guess. Every bulletin has these or words to this effect.
"Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number."
So the date that you see in the table is NOT eligible for visa numbers.
Thanks for the information. I believe I have to wait for another month to get any updates from the Sep visa bulletin or wait till same time next year since my PD is Mar-06.
Congrats to all to have received it and good luck to those who have become current !
"Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number."
So the date that you see in the table is NOT eligible for visa numbers.
Thanks for the information. I believe I have to wait for another month to get any updates from the Sep visa bulletin or wait till same time next year since my PD is Mar-06.
Congrats to all to have received it and good luck to those who have become current !
more...
nirenjoshi
11-12 03:51 PM
I am tracking the pace at which the FOIA requests are moving forward..
Request #NRC2008064184 moved from
65283 out of 66115 on 11/6/08 to
64565 out of 65477 pending requests on 11/12/08
At this rate, its moving ahead by about 100 requests per day. It will take 2 years to just get these requests cleared. And this particular request was on Track Two. Most others are on the Complex track which might take even longer.. :(
Request #NRC2008064184 moved from
65283 out of 66115 on 11/6/08 to
64565 out of 65477 pending requests on 11/12/08
At this rate, its moving ahead by about 100 requests per day. It will take 2 years to just get these requests cleared. And this particular request was on Track Two. Most others are on the Complex track which might take even longer.. :(
hot para Facebook e iPhone
abd
09-23 09:47 AM
Just when i was wondering that we will have to wait till OCt 1 when new visa are avialable... I saw your message... If i was you i will wait too for next 5/6 days you have till oct to respond.
Does that mean there is still hope that we may see some activity on the cases who have responsed to RFEs or we have to wait till OCt 1 Chewing our nails?
Does that mean there is still hope that we may see some activity on the cases who have responsed to RFEs or we have to wait till OCt 1 Chewing our nails?
more...
house Imagenes para Facebook de
varshadas
01-27 11:02 AM
Here is a summary of what we discussed in the conference call. Please add anything that I may have missed out.
1> Contact local congressmen - This is by far the most important thing that we have to do. As mentioned in my previous posts, congressmen will talk to only their district people, so each one of us has to try to contact the local congressmen - Varsha, Sanjay, Shekar, Ajay and Rajeev
2> Investigate our options with EBC radio - Sanjay
3> Investigate our options with Namaste America, AVS - Don't remember who volunteered for this
4> Distribute Flyers at Metropark on Monday - Ajay and Shekhar
5> Distribute Flyers at Bridgewater Temple - Varsha, Sanjay, Shekar, Ajay and Rajeev - Saturday, 02/03/2007
6> Come up with catch flyer sentences - Varsha to come up with the first draft. Lets try to close this out by Wednesday, 01/31/2007.
7> Investigate options with local newspapers - Ajay
8> Contact Oprah Winfrey - Varsha
9> Continue ongoing membership drive - Varsha, Sanjay, Shekar, Ajay and Rajeev
Option Ruled Out - Advertising in Movie Theater
Reason -
1>Cannot control the screens the advertisement will be played on
2>Because of above, could backfire if people not pro-immigration
3>Very expensive. Cost just not justify the benefit
Thank you all for your participation in the call today.
Thanks,
Varsha
1> Contact local congressmen - This is by far the most important thing that we have to do. As mentioned in my previous posts, congressmen will talk to only their district people, so each one of us has to try to contact the local congressmen - Varsha, Sanjay, Shekar, Ajay and Rajeev
2> Investigate our options with EBC radio - Sanjay
3> Investigate our options with Namaste America, AVS - Don't remember who volunteered for this
4> Distribute Flyers at Metropark on Monday - Ajay and Shekhar
5> Distribute Flyers at Bridgewater Temple - Varsha, Sanjay, Shekar, Ajay and Rajeev - Saturday, 02/03/2007
6> Come up with catch flyer sentences - Varsha to come up with the first draft. Lets try to close this out by Wednesday, 01/31/2007.
7> Investigate options with local newspapers - Ajay
8> Contact Oprah Winfrey - Varsha
9> Continue ongoing membership drive - Varsha, Sanjay, Shekar, Ajay and Rajeev
Option Ruled Out - Advertising in Movie Theater
Reason -
1>Cannot control the screens the advertisement will be played on
2>Because of above, could backfire if people not pro-immigration
3>Very expensive. Cost just not justify the benefit
Thank you all for your participation in the call today.
Thanks,
Varsha
tattoo de amor para facebook.
andy garcia
01-26 09:40 AM
I had trouble sifting through all that data and figuring out what that was all about.
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
Could you give the specific report that you used for these numbers. And, if possible, any hints on how you arrived at the data below. I would appreciate that.
Thanks....
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
more...
pictures Para Facebook | NOTAS FACEBOOK
rayoflight
02-19 11:29 AM
SEC. 501. EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ON THE BASIS OF EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION
‘Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
‘(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
‘(2) has at all times been a person of good moral character;
‘(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the United States;
‘(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so on account of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment;
‘(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
‘(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has performed at least 40 hours of community service.
‘(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
‘(c) Admissible as Immigrant-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an alien’s admissibility under this section.
‘(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status.
‘(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
‘(f) Termination of Proceedings- The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien’s application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
‘Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization.’.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ON THE BASIS OF EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION
‘Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
‘(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
‘(2) has at all times been a person of good moral character;
‘(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the United States;
‘(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so on account of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment;
‘(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
‘(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has performed at least 40 hours of community service.
‘(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
‘(c) Admissible as Immigrant-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an alien’s admissibility under this section.
‘(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status.
‘(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
‘(f) Termination of Proceedings- The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien’s application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
‘Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization.’.
dresses para ti amor
JazzByTheBay
09-13 02:01 PM
http://morejazzbythebay.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/sanjoserallybnr4-2.jpg
SAN JOSE WAS THE BEGINNING, DC WILL BE A HUGE MILESTONE!
(San Jose rally pictures and videos, and Aman's messages from Milpitas, CA meeting can be found at http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com (http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com/))
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/20/99/22609920.jpg
cheers, and see ya'll in DC!
jazz
Easy decision: JUST COME GUYS!!!!
SAN JOSE WAS THE BEGINNING, DC WILL BE A HUGE MILESTONE!
(San Jose rally pictures and videos, and Aman's messages from Milpitas, CA meeting can be found at http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com (http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com/))
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/20/99/22609920.jpg
cheers, and see ya'll in DC!
jazz
Easy decision: JUST COME GUYS!!!!
more...
makeup simbolos-para-facebook.jpg
RajahRajah
02-06 02:53 PM
To change the country quota.. you will have the change the entire US theory of melting pot. just a quick search on wiki will enlighten you about the history behind the country quota.. which was first enacted in 1924.
SO IV will look like Don quixote..trying to go after the unthinkable.
i agree with this quota system.. US has seen London become Londonisthan.. i am sure they wont let US to be overwhelmed by ppl from one country..
our best bet would be:
a.) Ask for transparency
b.) One time capture of unused GC from past 10 years.
something more realistic..
That's absolutely true. Immigration quotas were originally designed to keep people out, which meant if you were a white, Western European come on in. If you were not, you need not apply. The per country limit was instituted to redress this issue and assure diversity in the immigration process. Eliminating the per country limit would require a massive paradigm shift, that in the end would only be more harmful to those groups who perceive a short term benefit.
SO IV will look like Don quixote..trying to go after the unthinkable.
i agree with this quota system.. US has seen London become Londonisthan.. i am sure they wont let US to be overwhelmed by ppl from one country..
our best bet would be:
a.) Ask for transparency
b.) One time capture of unused GC from past 10 years.
something more realistic..
That's absolutely true. Immigration quotas were originally designed to keep people out, which meant if you were a white, Western European come on in. If you were not, you need not apply. The per country limit was instituted to redress this issue and assure diversity in the immigration process. Eliminating the per country limit would require a massive paradigm shift, that in the end would only be more harmful to those groups who perceive a short term benefit.
girlfriend de amor. de amor para facebook
PresidentO
02-04 11:58 AM
Actually country quota may be unfair based on skills. But green card is not the selection of brightest in interview or test. All the cases of gc are tested and everyone are equally important. For example scientist in Nasa and a Programmer in a Tech company are important. If really see merrit Nasa scientist must have priority. But really everyone is important as they are important for their employer. So having country quota will not select any incapable persons as every candidate is tested.
Also even if country quota is eliminated there is not going to be much difference in EB3(May be 6 month to 1 year PD difference). If you put calculations you can understand very well because unused quota is used in last quarter. Better calculate before starting compaign. May be another few thousand Visas could be utilized as Visas may not be wasted. If Recapture bill is passed with or without country quota then entire EB3 will be benefited. Otherwise it is just helpful to spoil the chances of row people at the same time it will not give much benefit to EB3 Indians.
I remember that EB3 persons were angry with EB2 people for a few months as they got all of other countries EB2.
Dude! Skills based mean not because of your country. That is it. Stop there. What people are clamoring for is single line as both the Nasa scientist and programmer are equally important to their employer. Now, no one knows who will get out first even though he/she has both merit/old pd and other crap. Country cap removal is not the only solution. Recapture with carry over going forward and/or increase of EB numbers to 250K or above is the complete solution.
Also even if country quota is eliminated there is not going to be much difference in EB3(May be 6 month to 1 year PD difference). If you put calculations you can understand very well because unused quota is used in last quarter. Better calculate before starting compaign. May be another few thousand Visas could be utilized as Visas may not be wasted. If Recapture bill is passed with or without country quota then entire EB3 will be benefited. Otherwise it is just helpful to spoil the chances of row people at the same time it will not give much benefit to EB3 Indians.
I remember that EB3 persons were angry with EB2 people for a few months as they got all of other countries EB2.
Dude! Skills based mean not because of your country. That is it. Stop there. What people are clamoring for is single line as both the Nasa scientist and programmer are equally important to their employer. Now, no one knows who will get out first even though he/she has both merit/old pd and other crap. Country cap removal is not the only solution. Recapture with carry over going forward and/or increase of EB numbers to 250K or above is the complete solution.
hairstyles y Graciosas Para Facebook
rajuram
11-10 10:34 PM
We have no more excuses now.
1. Elections are over. So all arguments like "wait till the elections are over" do not apply.
2. We have a pro immigration president now.
3. Democrats are incharge of the house and the senate.
This is a good time to act. What is IV waiting for...
Ofcourse economy will grab the headlines, but it does not mean nothing else can be done. Do something before democrats start worrying about 2010 elections. Time to highlight that immigrants can help by buying houses (NPR had devoted some time to it recently, so they are aware, we just need to give it more publicity)
1. Elections are over. So all arguments like "wait till the elections are over" do not apply.
2. We have a pro immigration president now.
3. Democrats are incharge of the house and the senate.
This is a good time to act. What is IV waiting for...
Ofcourse economy will grab the headlines, but it does not mean nothing else can be done. Do something before democrats start worrying about 2010 elections. Time to highlight that immigrants can help by buying houses (NPR had devoted some time to it recently, so they are aware, we just need to give it more publicity)
mmrao2007
07-14 05:15 PM
May be you can submit AC 21 now. Just a wild guess
bkarnik
07-25 06:46 PM
Thanks a lot, please keep us posted about the outcome, even if we have one percent of hope, there is no harm trying that.
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Anyways, I sent the following email to my lawyer, the entire chain with names deleted is reproduced here for your reading pleasure. This exchange highlights the apathy with which the legal community (at least my lawyer) view the issue and their knowledge of the law.... enjoy.. :(
From: Attorney
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
I see your point. You should contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association with your question. If the issue has not already been addressed by this organization, I'm sure they will readily champion your cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:49 AM
To: attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
Thank you for your time and the quick turnaround. However, the question still remains. If you notice in the link sent by you below, the USCIS refers to the US 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c) According to the USCIS, the CFR is the interpretation made by the agencies of the INA as passed and amended by Congress. The INA itself does not seem to have any clause relating to EAD for employment based categories because I believe the Congress never foresaw a situation where it will take up to 5-6 years for the process to complete.
I know that the USCIS has on many occasions by using the Federal Register or by Memorandums modified the CFR or changed the regulations governing the validity of the EAD, and I am wondering if something similar can be achieved in this case, wherein an appeal is made to the USCIS to change the rules governing eligibility for issuing an EAD.
Thanks once again.
Bkarnik.
-----Original Message-----
From: AttorneySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
Hello BKarnik,
Your argument is sound, however, U.S. Immigration does indeed adjudicate
I-765 EAD applications based upon eligibility for filing. Please click this
link: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-765.htm. It will take you to the USCIS web site where you can download form I-765. Included with the form is an instruction sheet. In the section entitled "Eligibility Categories", U.S. Immigration spells out the categories for which form I-765 may be filed. For example, under the "Foreign Students" title, you can see that an F-1 OPT student is eligible to obtain EAD work authorization pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(i). Your eligibility for EAD work authorization will fall under the "EAD Applicants Who Have Filed for Adjustment of Status" title under subsection (c)(9). Unfortunately, there is no eligibility category for I-140 IVP applicants or for IVP approval notice holders.
I hope this answers your questions.
Attorney
________________________________
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
I had a question for you (actually, it is a series of sub questions).
However, this has nothing to with my employer or my GC, so if you feel that replying to this question will take up an inordinate amount of time or of you think that this is something that is worthwhile in pursuing, please let me know what your charges will be and I will let you know if I can afford them :)) With that out of the way, here goes:
The question is about getting an EAD before filing the I-485. I was perusing the INA as posted on the USCIS website. I did not find any applicable law that directs the USCIS when it can issue EADs. It is quite likely that I missed the section as I am not a student of laws as you are.
If so, can you let me know where to find it? As you know, the EAD issue is mentioned in the US 8 CFR sec. 274a. Now, the USCIS website explains that the CFR thus: The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies.
These
regulations apply the law to daily situations. Thus, the CFR is the interpretation of the law by the USCIS for application in daily life.
If
that is the case, what prevents the USCIS from issuing EADs upon the approval of Form I-140? Especially, since as you very well know, the Form I-140 is an application made by the employer to the USCIS to petition for an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States.
Therefore,
the form requires the employer to fill in all the pertinent information about the alien and his dependents. An approval of the Form I-140 indicates (at least to me) that the USCIS has agreed with the employee that the labor certification is good and the alien is approvable as a permanent employee.
I guess that is one of the reasons, the USCIS allows concurrent filing of the I-140/I-485.
With the current retrogression concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 is not possible, if the USCIS were to be agreeable to issue EADs to persons with approved I-140 it would make life a lot easier for all while at the same time not impacting the green card process itself. All we are asking is that the EAD be issued after I-140 approval, because it does not make sense to tell an employer that the alien is approved for permanent employment, but at the same time asking the employer to keep the employee in a H1B (i.e.
temporary status) at no fault of the employer/employee. Can you let me know if my argument is flawed? If not, do you think we have a way by which we can ask the USCIS for its interpretation or opinion on the issue? If we can, and you are willing to take the matter, can you let me know your fees?
I know that you are very busy, and may not be able to take on the matter even if you find merit in it. In that case, would know of a competent person willing to take it up?
Thank you for your time and patience,
Sincerely,
Bkarnik
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Anyways, I sent the following email to my lawyer, the entire chain with names deleted is reproduced here for your reading pleasure. This exchange highlights the apathy with which the legal community (at least my lawyer) view the issue and their knowledge of the law.... enjoy.. :(
From: Attorney
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
I see your point. You should contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association with your question. If the issue has not already been addressed by this organization, I'm sure they will readily champion your cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:49 AM
To: attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
Thank you for your time and the quick turnaround. However, the question still remains. If you notice in the link sent by you below, the USCIS refers to the US 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c) According to the USCIS, the CFR is the interpretation made by the agencies of the INA as passed and amended by Congress. The INA itself does not seem to have any clause relating to EAD for employment based categories because I believe the Congress never foresaw a situation where it will take up to 5-6 years for the process to complete.
I know that the USCIS has on many occasions by using the Federal Register or by Memorandums modified the CFR or changed the regulations governing the validity of the EAD, and I am wondering if something similar can be achieved in this case, wherein an appeal is made to the USCIS to change the rules governing eligibility for issuing an EAD.
Thanks once again.
Bkarnik.
-----Original Message-----
From: AttorneySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
Hello BKarnik,
Your argument is sound, however, U.S. Immigration does indeed adjudicate
I-765 EAD applications based upon eligibility for filing. Please click this
link: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-765.htm. It will take you to the USCIS web site where you can download form I-765. Included with the form is an instruction sheet. In the section entitled "Eligibility Categories", U.S. Immigration spells out the categories for which form I-765 may be filed. For example, under the "Foreign Students" title, you can see that an F-1 OPT student is eligible to obtain EAD work authorization pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(i). Your eligibility for EAD work authorization will fall under the "EAD Applicants Who Have Filed for Adjustment of Status" title under subsection (c)(9). Unfortunately, there is no eligibility category for I-140 IVP applicants or for IVP approval notice holders.
I hope this answers your questions.
Attorney
________________________________
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
I had a question for you (actually, it is a series of sub questions).
However, this has nothing to with my employer or my GC, so if you feel that replying to this question will take up an inordinate amount of time or of you think that this is something that is worthwhile in pursuing, please let me know what your charges will be and I will let you know if I can afford them :)) With that out of the way, here goes:
The question is about getting an EAD before filing the I-485. I was perusing the INA as posted on the USCIS website. I did not find any applicable law that directs the USCIS when it can issue EADs. It is quite likely that I missed the section as I am not a student of laws as you are.
If so, can you let me know where to find it? As you know, the EAD issue is mentioned in the US 8 CFR sec. 274a. Now, the USCIS website explains that the CFR thus: The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies.
These
regulations apply the law to daily situations. Thus, the CFR is the interpretation of the law by the USCIS for application in daily life.
If
that is the case, what prevents the USCIS from issuing EADs upon the approval of Form I-140? Especially, since as you very well know, the Form I-140 is an application made by the employer to the USCIS to petition for an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States.
Therefore,
the form requires the employer to fill in all the pertinent information about the alien and his dependents. An approval of the Form I-140 indicates (at least to me) that the USCIS has agreed with the employee that the labor certification is good and the alien is approvable as a permanent employee.
I guess that is one of the reasons, the USCIS allows concurrent filing of the I-140/I-485.
With the current retrogression concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 is not possible, if the USCIS were to be agreeable to issue EADs to persons with approved I-140 it would make life a lot easier for all while at the same time not impacting the green card process itself. All we are asking is that the EAD be issued after I-140 approval, because it does not make sense to tell an employer that the alien is approved for permanent employment, but at the same time asking the employer to keep the employee in a H1B (i.e.
temporary status) at no fault of the employer/employee. Can you let me know if my argument is flawed? If not, do you think we have a way by which we can ask the USCIS for its interpretation or opinion on the issue? If we can, and you are willing to take the matter, can you let me know your fees?
I know that you are very busy, and may not be able to take on the matter even if you find merit in it. In that case, would know of a competent person willing to take it up?
Thank you for your time and patience,
Sincerely,
Bkarnik
0 comments:
Post a Comment