pathiren
03-29 07:56 PM
Chanduv,
I am sorry, but as far as I have known IV, IV has never exclusively or inclusively worked on student OPT/H1, but it is a coincidence that increase in student OPT might be a fallout of some of IV's actions. I dont see any point of asking students to join IV solely on this basis (OPT or H1 increase). Though, having graduated as a student in US, I totally agree to the point of asking students to join stating that GC is the final step in achieving their American Dream, where IV can make considerable impact.
I think the administrators should particulary keep a close watch on such posts related to OPT/H1 issues. These posts might be incorrectly interpreted and lead to deviatons from IV's cores agenda issues as well as division of resources. Unless, IV administrators are seriously thinking of changing their ideology and are willing to walk this path.
Nevertheless, I will keep on supporting IV with all my possible efforts. Cheers and Go IV!
HP
I am sorry, but as far as I have known IV, IV has never exclusively or inclusively worked on student OPT/H1, but it is a coincidence that increase in student OPT might be a fallout of some of IV's actions. I dont see any point of asking students to join IV solely on this basis (OPT or H1 increase). Though, having graduated as a student in US, I totally agree to the point of asking students to join stating that GC is the final step in achieving their American Dream, where IV can make considerable impact.
I think the administrators should particulary keep a close watch on such posts related to OPT/H1 issues. These posts might be incorrectly interpreted and lead to deviatons from IV's cores agenda issues as well as division of resources. Unless, IV administrators are seriously thinking of changing their ideology and are willing to walk this path.
Nevertheless, I will keep on supporting IV with all my possible efforts. Cheers and Go IV!
HP
wallpaper Medium Length Curly Updo
dealsnet
03-19 11:49 AM
I think he mentioned 2005 fee as the fee for I-485 in 2005 (old fee structure). Not the check date of 2005. Let him clarify.
Just wondering, a 2005 check is a very valid check. A check with future date is not valid for cashing immediatly. This may be invalid if the lawyer didnt had the account in 2005.
Just wondering, a 2005 check is a very valid check. A check with future date is not valid for cashing immediatly. This may be invalid if the lawyer didnt had the account in 2005.
jonty_11
10-23 01:08 PM
Thanks for ur reply... but i ve already bought the ticket...so shud i buy another one-way ticket :confused:
I guess that is teh only option u have...
I guess that is teh only option u have...
2011 Cameron Diaz Updo Hair
VisaVisa
09-08 11:08 PM
Me and my wife are on pending I-485 AOS. Mine is employment based (EB3) and my wife's is derivative.
I-140 is approved.
I work here on EAD. My wife had to travel to India urgently. She applied for Advance Parole, but had to leave before she received the Advance Parole.
Now she wants to return back, but as she has not yet received Advance Parole, will she need to apply for Visa?
Or is it better to wait for Advance pArole decision?
If Visa, under what category?
Thanks
I-140 is approved.
I work here on EAD. My wife had to travel to India urgently. She applied for Advance Parole, but had to leave before she received the Advance Parole.
Now she wants to return back, but as she has not yet received Advance Parole, will she need to apply for Visa?
Or is it better to wait for Advance pArole decision?
If Visa, under what category?
Thanks
more...
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.
Lisap
08-03 12:49 PM
------------------------------
This post has been deleted.
Please mantain a civil tone on the forums.
This post has been deleted.
Please mantain a civil tone on the forums.
more...
Green.Tech
07-25 09:53 PM
My duties increased, in past i was doing more tech work now i mostly manage people who do the same tech work but as i said it's all subjected to the lawyer and employer.
Sounds fair. Thanks for the info buddy. Good luck!
Sounds fair. Thanks for the info buddy. Good luck!
2010 updos hairstyles gallery. this
eb3India
05-22 09:22 AM
Admin,
I do understand core members have fulltime job I mentioned earlier I volunteer to do some research in this subject.
However I don't want re-invent the wheel and I was expecting a very simple answers and pointers on the subject
for example, if someone had spent time on this, they could simply answer yes and provide some links etc where I get more answers.
as I write I am googling on this subject and will provide my findings
between, guys we are all in a same boat we should work collective to get out of this mess
I do understand core members have fulltime job I mentioned earlier I volunteer to do some research in this subject.
However I don't want re-invent the wheel and I was expecting a very simple answers and pointers on the subject
for example, if someone had spent time on this, they could simply answer yes and provide some links etc where I get more answers.
as I write I am googling on this subject and will provide my findings
between, guys we are all in a same boat we should work collective to get out of this mess
more...
sureshvd
10-15 11:15 AM
Hi svr_76,
By accepting citizenship will not make you "FORIEGN". Even after 10 yrs you still be looked as Indian immigrant after all. You are right in a sense that sooner we all will cry for for PIO card.
By accepting citizenship will not make you "FORIEGN". Even after 10 yrs you still be looked as Indian immigrant after all. You are right in a sense that sooner we all will cry for for PIO card.
hair Beautiful curly updo hairstyle
morchu
05-21 09:39 PM
1. No
2. ??? don't do any amendment. Just file a new eb2-140.
3. No as long as you leave your EB3-140 as it is.
Attorneys or Gurus please:
I have a bit different situation than Raj (rajivkane), so please suggest/answer following queries:
1. Is it advisable to file amendment I-824 or other (requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date) instead of filing a new EB2 I-140 once EB2 Labor will get clear? My 485 is pending with EB3 I-140, where as EB-3 I-140 got approved before filing I-485 in July'2007.
2. Or it�s compulsory to file new I-140 with EB2 and once I-140 after that amendment.
3. Will it impact my pending 485 in regards to any of the above cases, which ever is correct?
Regards,
Raman
2. ??? don't do any amendment. Just file a new eb2-140.
3. No as long as you leave your EB3-140 as it is.
Attorneys or Gurus please:
I have a bit different situation than Raj (rajivkane), so please suggest/answer following queries:
1. Is it advisable to file amendment I-824 or other (requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date) instead of filing a new EB2 I-140 once EB2 Labor will get clear? My 485 is pending with EB3 I-140, where as EB-3 I-140 got approved before filing I-485 in July'2007.
2. Or it�s compulsory to file new I-140 with EB2 and once I-140 after that amendment.
3. Will it impact my pending 485 in regards to any of the above cases, which ever is correct?
Regards,
Raman
more...
eb3_nepa
07-09 02:05 PM
Try complaining to the local Bar association. Thats the advice someone gave me. Also try the Better Business Bureau.
hot Elegant Long Wavy Hairstyle
Rajeev
10-12 09:50 AM
The maximum duration allowed on L1B is 5 years where as on L1A, it is 7 years. On H1B it is 6 years. Duration spent on L1 is counted with the duration spent on H1 and vice versa.
The maximum time allowed on H1B is 6 years, this includes the time you spent on L1. This is the reason why you have been given H1B that is only valid for 1 year.
On a side note, the maximum time allowed on L1 is 5 years - you had to go back to India since you have spent the maximum allowable time on that visa.
Now, there are two ways to extend your stay beyond the initial 5/6 yrs granted on H1 or L1 visas.
1. For both L1 and H1Bs: Go back to your country (India) for 1 yr after your initial term expires. After 1 yr stay in your home country, you will be eligible for "another cycle" of L1/H1. So, for L1 you will get another 5 yrs, and H1B another 6 yrs.
2. Another way to extend your H1B is to start your Green card process (file your labor, and then your 140). Once your labor is pending for > 1 yr, or your 140 is approved, you will be eligible for 1 yr or 3 yr H1B extensions. This does not apply to L1s.
Here is what I would suggest for your case:
Best case scenario: Wait until your 1 yr clock resets, apply for fresh L1A (multi national manager). Once you are in the USA, convince your company to file for your green card in EB1 - multi national manager. The EB1 is almost always current, you can get your GC pretty soon.
This is the best case scenario that I can envision for you.
Alternatively,you can come back immediately on H1, apply for your PERM and 140, and then get unlimited extensions based on your GC being pending.
You can also wait until your 1 yr clock resets and then enter on H1 in Feb 2008, where by you might be able to claim 5 more years on H1B extensions ( a total of fresh 6 yrs on your current H1B). eventually, you will have to file for your PERM and 140 and then get extensions beyond the 6 yrs. I think you will need to file a petition with USCIS indicating the H1B clock reset.
Merely applying for L1A will not invalidate your H1. however, entering on L1A will invalidate your H1b (you can only hold one visa at a time - L1 or H1B). BTW... I guess you can not enter on L1 until you reset your 1 yr clock.
If I were you,I would seriously consider entering on L1A and then filing for EB1 GC. This is the quickest possible route for your GC. Unless, ofcourse, you do not want to be with the company for another year or so because your relationship with the employer is strained.
The maximum time allowed on H1B is 6 years, this includes the time you spent on L1. This is the reason why you have been given H1B that is only valid for 1 year.
On a side note, the maximum time allowed on L1 is 5 years - you had to go back to India since you have spent the maximum allowable time on that visa.
Now, there are two ways to extend your stay beyond the initial 5/6 yrs granted on H1 or L1 visas.
1. For both L1 and H1Bs: Go back to your country (India) for 1 yr after your initial term expires. After 1 yr stay in your home country, you will be eligible for "another cycle" of L1/H1. So, for L1 you will get another 5 yrs, and H1B another 6 yrs.
2. Another way to extend your H1B is to start your Green card process (file your labor, and then your 140). Once your labor is pending for > 1 yr, or your 140 is approved, you will be eligible for 1 yr or 3 yr H1B extensions. This does not apply to L1s.
Here is what I would suggest for your case:
Best case scenario: Wait until your 1 yr clock resets, apply for fresh L1A (multi national manager). Once you are in the USA, convince your company to file for your green card in EB1 - multi national manager. The EB1 is almost always current, you can get your GC pretty soon.
This is the best case scenario that I can envision for you.
Alternatively,you can come back immediately on H1, apply for your PERM and 140, and then get unlimited extensions based on your GC being pending.
You can also wait until your 1 yr clock resets and then enter on H1 in Feb 2008, where by you might be able to claim 5 more years on H1B extensions ( a total of fresh 6 yrs on your current H1B). eventually, you will have to file for your PERM and 140 and then get extensions beyond the 6 yrs. I think you will need to file a petition with USCIS indicating the H1B clock reset.
Merely applying for L1A will not invalidate your H1. however, entering on L1A will invalidate your H1b (you can only hold one visa at a time - L1 or H1B). BTW... I guess you can not enter on L1 until you reset your 1 yr clock.
If I were you,I would seriously consider entering on L1A and then filing for EB1 GC. This is the quickest possible route for your GC. Unless, ofcourse, you do not want to be with the company for another year or so because your relationship with the employer is strained.
more...
house updo hairstyles medium length
lostinbeta
10-03 01:19 PM
HEY.......YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!
Well fine, if you want to play like that.....
SPAM*(INFINITY*(INFINITY+1)*(INFINITY^INFINITY))
:::Runs and ducks behind a building in a dark alley, gets mugged by some thugs:::
:::evil chuckle is still heard, but is much fainter than before:::
Well fine, if you want to play like that.....
SPAM*(INFINITY*(INFINITY+1)*(INFINITY^INFINITY))
:::Runs and ducks behind a building in a dark alley, gets mugged by some thugs:::
:::evil chuckle is still heard, but is much fainter than before:::
tattoo curly updo prom hairstyles
acecupid
08-21 05:45 PM
My checks were cashed on Aug 20th for RD of Jul 16th :)
more...
pictures updos for medium length hair
SEP03NY
08-15 02:57 PM
one of my friend file I485 on 30th July, he got receipt notice. They
have mention received on 2nd July.
have mention received on 2nd July.
dresses Updos for Medium Length Hair
cal_dood
12-18 04:26 PM
As the cruises stop for less than 24 hrs, you may not need a mexico visa. I'm not applying for one...worst case probably is I cannot disembark in cozumel.
I called Carnival, the CSR mentioned that I only need a passport and a US visa. However, their website says check with the country's embassy for immigration documents. I guess I will err on the side of caution and get Mexican tourist visa.
I called Carnival, the CSR mentioned that I only need a passport and a US visa. However, their website says check with the country's embassy for immigration documents. I guess I will err on the side of caution and get Mexican tourist visa.
more...
makeup Updos For Medium Length Hair
indyanguy
09-11 10:30 AM
So, is MS + 2 the safest way to go? Also, what is the min. salary requirement that DOL accepts if a job requires MS + 2 (say in CA).
girlfriend Curly Updo Hairstyle
WeShallOvercome
07-30 02:13 PM
All the Receipts go to Lawyer Alone.
You will only get the EAD approval(actual card), everything else you are at the lawyer's mercy.
Even FP notice? I think it comes directly to you..
You will only get the EAD approval(actual card), everything else you are at the lawyer's mercy.
Even FP notice? I think it comes directly to you..
hairstyles hair updos hairstyles gallery.
waiting4gcps
08-15 06:35 PM
Got the CRIS email welcoming the new perm. resident for both me and my spouse
---------
PD: Mar 2005
RD: 7/1/2007
NSC
---------
PD: Mar 2005
RD: 7/1/2007
NSC
REEF�
06-11 03:52 PM
And everyone has a side with some boobies!
brahmam
09-04 11:22 AM
OK, now that we all are agonizing over what's gonna happen, I think the following could be a possibility. USCIS has pre-adj almost 150,000 apps and has got nothing more to do now and the new Q1 for 2010 has around 35,000 visa numbers available to be processed.
Would DOS let CIS sit on their bums with not much to do other than process any new 485s that could be filed by ROW or would DOS move the dates to 2008 or 2007 so that any more people that still need to file 485 can do so and CIS stays busy. I think they would want to keep CIS busy. this would of course not mean every one of us will get approved since EB2/3 India and china only have around ~3000 visa numbers available in Q1 2010.
who votes for this russian roulette option? :D
Would DOS let CIS sit on their bums with not much to do other than process any new 485s that could be filed by ROW or would DOS move the dates to 2008 or 2007 so that any more people that still need to file 485 can do so and CIS stays busy. I think they would want to keep CIS busy. this would of course not mean every one of us will get approved since EB2/3 India and china only have around ~3000 visa numbers available in Q1 2010.
who votes for this russian roulette option? :D
No comments:
Post a Comment