tamil12
09-09 08:55 AM
If you can't able to wait for the AP to come...Then give a shot to the local USCIS office...and get an emergency AP...you can get it in oneday...But you need a valid document to show as it's a emergency travel to India....probably a document from India...
andy garcia
07-30 02:54 PM
but we do get the original FP notice , right?
That is correct. I meant Lawyers get copies. we get the originals.
That is correct. I meant Lawyers get copies. we get the originals.
uma001
05-24 09:10 AM
I am also on same boat. My employer is doing initial process for filing labour. I am not sure he knows about this merit based points system. Do you want me to tell him to wait because of this new law in process or continue filing for PERM.My employer is american company.
sunny1000
07-23 01:38 AM
For Labor substitution cases, is there premium processing for I-140? Earlier, USCIS announced that from 05/18/2007 to 07/16/2007, it was stopping premium processing for Labor substitution cases. Any change now?
No PP for labor subs. No PP for other EB cases until 8/2/07 atleast. They may extend that because of the I-485 filings which will happen until 8/17.
No PP for labor subs. No PP for other EB cases until 8/2/07 atleast. They may extend that because of the I-485 filings which will happen until 8/17.
more...
Prashanthi
05-20 05:39 PM
Your company must file an amended petition for the reduced hours, they will have to follow the current prev wage survey, might be a problem to get a transfer if the USICS notices the low wages, yes they might evaluate the case again.
petersebastian
04-01 06:00 PM
Apply for GC...as you become illegal its easier to get GC. Only people who legal and law obeying to need to be in line for years.
And I can't apply for a green card, I don't meet the criteria...I'd have to get married with a woman.
And I can't apply for a green card, I don't meet the criteria...I'd have to get married with a woman.
more...
gcseeker28
07-27 09:19 PM
hibnogc
This is also one of the questions I have. So, did you contest the denial request and are you currently working?
This is also one of the questions I have. So, did you contest the denial request and are you currently working?
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
k_sing
09-19 01:00 AM
Unfortunately Bitu72 did not have answer to my specific question, so the question is still Open.
Any appropriate response is much appreciated !
Any appropriate response is much appreciated !
PD_Dec2002
07-06 12:52 PM
?????????
Yeah, my bad. Thanks to other posters for correcting this.
Thanks,
Jayant
Yeah, my bad. Thanks to other posters for correcting this.
Thanks,
Jayant
more...
ramaonline
07-15 02:10 PM
You can still work on EAD and maintain your H4 as long as you do not go out of the country. If you go out and enter on AP, then you switch back to AOS, no reporting to USCIS is necessary. But if you can still file I-539 and switch back to H4 again.
But on H4 you can still work on EAD, while maintaining your H4 status.
H4 status ends the moment you start using EAD for employment. You would need to use AP for travel and re-entry.
But on H4 you can still work on EAD, while maintaining your H4 status.
H4 status ends the moment you start using EAD for employment. You would need to use AP for travel and re-entry.
Steve Mitchell
February 15th, 2004, 06:56 PM
Just added the Sony 717 to the list of cameras that the DOF calculator should give an accurate DOF reading. It is my understanding the the COC varies with varies digital cameras. I gathered this information from here (http://dfleming.ameranet.com/digital_coc.html). This is the guy who created the equations for one of Nikon's websites. That is the variable that changes and alters the DOF if I interpurt this correctly. This is the variable that is changed when determing the DOF in the DOF calculator (http://www.dphoto.us/forum/index.php?section=depthoffield) on Dphoto.us.
Your experiencing an effect called Depth of Field(DOF). This is commen and usally you want to minimize it for effect but not in your case.
You will need to learn to use a DOF calculator, there is one on this site but it does not include the 2/3" sensor sive you camera has. A better one for you right now may be this calculator here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5700/page2.asp
Using this you can determine the distance you need, focal length and distance to subject to obtain the desired DOF. Currently on the wide end of your camera, you'll need to move about a 1.5 feet from the focus point with f8 to get the DOF you desire. If you get the WA adaptor you'll be able to move closer to about .9 feet from the focus point and still obtain the DOF you desire.
You'll never be able to be within 5 inches from the object and obtain the DOF you desire, it simply is not possible with you camera. As to which WA adaptor to get? I don't know. I've never used anything of the sort so I can not answer that question for you.
Scott
Your experiencing an effect called Depth of Field(DOF). This is commen and usally you want to minimize it for effect but not in your case.
You will need to learn to use a DOF calculator, there is one on this site but it does not include the 2/3" sensor sive you camera has. A better one for you right now may be this calculator here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5700/page2.asp
Using this you can determine the distance you need, focal length and distance to subject to obtain the desired DOF. Currently on the wide end of your camera, you'll need to move about a 1.5 feet from the focus point with f8 to get the DOF you desire. If you get the WA adaptor you'll be able to move closer to about .9 feet from the focus point and still obtain the DOF you desire.
You'll never be able to be within 5 inches from the object and obtain the DOF you desire, it simply is not possible with you camera. As to which WA adaptor to get? I don't know. I've never used anything of the sort so I can not answer that question for you.
Scott
more...
chris
12-31 01:21 PM
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
Is your case complicated
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?[/QUOTE]
Family of three.
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
Is your case complicated
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?[/QUOTE]
Family of three.
kumar1
06-14 03:03 PM
God bless Raj. I am not sure if every story ends like this particular one.
Refer this:
Case Study: Upgrade from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-06/case_study_upgrade_from_eb3_to_eb2.html)
Refer this:
Case Study: Upgrade from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-06/case_study_upgrade_from_eb3_to_eb2.html)
more...
micofrost
07-15 01:54 PM
Well, the first statement is true; the second, however is not. When one starts to work on EAD, his/her status changes to AOS, assuming his/her I-485 is pending. So, in this case, she will no longer be considered being on H4.
You can still work on EAD and maintain your H4 as long as you do not go out of the country. If you go out and enter on AP, then you switch back to AOS, no reporting to USCIS is necessary. But if you can still file I-539 and switch back to H4 again.
But on H4 you can still work on EAD, while maintaining your H4 status.
I would ask everyone , pls be careful while responding to someone's querry. And the person asking should also consult a lawyer. In this case, since I am in the same boat, and the advice came from the lawyer. I just got my spouse H4 extended for another 3 years, the after 6 years extension, while she is working on her EAD.
You can still work on EAD and maintain your H4 as long as you do not go out of the country. If you go out and enter on AP, then you switch back to AOS, no reporting to USCIS is necessary. But if you can still file I-539 and switch back to H4 again.
But on H4 you can still work on EAD, while maintaining your H4 status.
I would ask everyone , pls be careful while responding to someone's querry. And the person asking should also consult a lawyer. In this case, since I am in the same boat, and the advice came from the lawyer. I just got my spouse H4 extended for another 3 years, the after 6 years extension, while she is working on her EAD.
gcdeal
07-10 07:57 PM
Nandini Nair's fees are very less and I got my PERM LC (in EB2) & I-140 approved through her without any questions. Real quick response!
She was a weekly columnist for Express Computer on immigration topics.
nnair@nair-law.com
www.nairlaw.com
She is a total B**** . You cannot even ask her a question!
She was a weekly columnist for Express Computer on immigration topics.
nnair@nair-law.com
www.nairlaw.com
She is a total B**** . You cannot even ask her a question!
more...
meridiani.planum
04-03 05:49 PM
inline...
Hi All,
I am thinking of looking for other job options. I want to know if you any one of you have changed jobs on EAD and your experience with the whole issue.
I changed jobs on EAD
1. Did you find have any issues when getting 485 approved.
My PD is still 5 years or so away from being current. :)
2. Did you file AC21.
No. But hired same lawyer who had filed the initial case. If current employer revokes I-140 (through same lawyer) might send AC-21 letter.
3. Does the job responsibility has to meet 100% word by word.
In my case its about 80% the same. In general its better if its as close as possible.
4. Has any one you applied for EAD extension on your own.
Not done yet, but will do this year. Its a simple enough form
5. Has any one got an RFE after changing the Job on EAD and submitting AC21. if so what kind of questions do they ask.
have been looking at immigrationportal.com for older-timers experience with AC-21 and no one that I know of has go an RFE wrt proving new job is similar to old one.
Hi All,
I am thinking of looking for other job options. I want to know if you any one of you have changed jobs on EAD and your experience with the whole issue.
I changed jobs on EAD
1. Did you find have any issues when getting 485 approved.
My PD is still 5 years or so away from being current. :)
2. Did you file AC21.
No. But hired same lawyer who had filed the initial case. If current employer revokes I-140 (through same lawyer) might send AC-21 letter.
3. Does the job responsibility has to meet 100% word by word.
In my case its about 80% the same. In general its better if its as close as possible.
4. Has any one you applied for EAD extension on your own.
Not done yet, but will do this year. Its a simple enough form
5. Has any one got an RFE after changing the Job on EAD and submitting AC21. if so what kind of questions do they ask.
have been looking at immigrationportal.com for older-timers experience with AC-21 and no one that I know of has go an RFE wrt proving new job is similar to old one.
pani_6
03-25 02:08 PM
I am hoping to travel via emirates to bangalore..I have avoided other airlines due to transit visa issues...any experince using Emirates??.
americandesi
12-12 06:27 PM
Now that dates for EB2 have moved to Jan 2000 PD, it might be interesting to see if we have folks in here with EB2 PD in or before Jan 2000.
I know a friend whose EB2-PD was in 2000. Guess what? He's a US citizen now :)
I know a friend whose EB2-PD was in 2000. Guess what? He's a US citizen now :)
chaks7
01-20 09:09 AM
We are expecting, so I do not think it is possible to change insurance. We still tried and got rejected. So that we will leave us with COBRA in case my wife chooses to quit or something happens to her job. And does H4 visa affect COBRA coverage? If you can answer this question that will be very helpful.
singhsa3
06-01 05:58 PM
It is illegal. If being paid less than on your H1 LCA
.jpg)
