mambarg
07-27 12:45 PM
If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
wallpaper 2011 Audi A8 L announced
sonu
10-06 10:02 AM
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
I am in the same situation as your, USCIS website shows that my wife's AP approved and mine is still pending at TSC. I called USCIS yesterday , they told me to wait for 90 days from notice date.
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
I am in the same situation as your, USCIS website shows that my wife's AP approved and mine is still pending at TSC. I called USCIS yesterday , they told me to wait for 90 days from notice date.
waitin_toolong
08-14 06:11 AM
Thanks Jayant,
I will call USCIS with my receipt number to find out my wife's. I will post what they have to say.
Regards
Raj
if you sent separate checks then the checks cashed will give you a clue and receipt numbers. If a common check then if that was cashed (must have been you got the receipts) then hers would have been accepted as well otherwise all filings would have been rejected.
You get Receipts for each applicant/application in separate envelops.
I will call USCIS with my receipt number to find out my wife's. I will post what they have to say.
Regards
Raj
if you sent separate checks then the checks cashed will give you a clue and receipt numbers. If a common check then if that was cashed (must have been you got the receipts) then hers would have been accepted as well otherwise all filings would have been rejected.
You get Receipts for each applicant/application in separate envelops.
2011 aspirated 6.3L W12 engine,
sukumar05
10-08 04:57 PM
i am in the same boat..applied for GC in august but not married yet..
From my understanding, i can add my spouse later when she's here and my PD is current but before my gc is approved.
there are two worst case scenarios,
1) If GC gets approved before marriage. there's nothing i can do other than marrying someone, who has her own visa. I know this won't happen.
2) GC may get approved even my PD is not current but after marriage, then I would have 6mo grace period to apply for her. This may happen due to uscis messing up with dates..
Please someone let me know if I am missing something..
From my understanding, i can add my spouse later when she's here and my PD is current but before my gc is approved.
there are two worst case scenarios,
1) If GC gets approved before marriage. there's nothing i can do other than marrying someone, who has her own visa. I know this won't happen.
2) GC may get approved even my PD is not current but after marriage, then I would have 6mo grace period to apply for her. This may happen due to uscis messing up with dates..
Please someone let me know if I am missing something..
more...
sobers
05-26 08:40 AM
QGA & IV: thank you from the bottom of my heart! you guys rock. There ought to be some fairness in the process of immigration reform...one that does not penalize legal immigrants...you guys have shown that it can be done.
vivache
10-05 05:41 PM
Hi
Is there any webpage that has details on an EAD and what jobs a person can do, cannot do, whether new job it needs to tie in 50% to current job etc ..
I'm looking for the official page that has some detail on this.
Looked online did not find anything. A little surprised.
Let me know if any of you have any relevant links to this info.
Not looking for hearsay ... something official.
Thanks
V
Is there any webpage that has details on an EAD and what jobs a person can do, cannot do, whether new job it needs to tie in 50% to current job etc ..
I'm looking for the official page that has some detail on this.
Looked online did not find anything. A little surprised.
Let me know if any of you have any relevant links to this info.
Not looking for hearsay ... something official.
Thanks
V
more...
21stIcon
12-20 08:40 PM
Undocumented amount 33% taken out from monthly compensation then pay roll tax withhold amount went to federal, state tax, social tax and Medicare.
My point is how can employer deduct tax with is not shown on pay slip.
What would be take home for 100k base? He should deposit $8333/pm not $5835/pm then pay roll processing department will deduct appropriate amount not he deducts 33% then sends to pay roll.
My point is how can employer deduct tax with is not shown on pay slip.
What would be take home for 100k base? He should deposit $8333/pm not $5835/pm then pay roll processing department will deduct appropriate amount not he deducts 33% then sends to pay roll.
2010 Audi A8L Security Installed
glen
05-18 01:46 PM
Absolutely great. Love to be a part of IV.:)
more...
GCBy3000
01-03 03:57 PM
Great pledge and Thanks.
Members, please update your signature with your pledge. It is an inspiration point for you as well as to other members. We need this inspiration for ourselves more than IV needed.
This pledge and contribution is for ourselves and not for anyone else. We are going to enjoy the fruits if we can make the difference with lawmakers. IV core members can put their head into more important statergic thinking than worrying about funds. We can atleaset help ourselves by this simple pledge. There is not physical work invovled with it. Commonnnnn..... cheer up and lets get what we want from the new congress.
Do your KARMA and leave the results to time.
I pledge to contribute $40 a month. And more when ever I can.
-- Also guys lets keep the momentum going .. we need more people enrolled and every single one of us opening up their wallets.
Members, please update your signature with your pledge. It is an inspiration point for you as well as to other members. We need this inspiration for ourselves more than IV needed.
This pledge and contribution is for ourselves and not for anyone else. We are going to enjoy the fruits if we can make the difference with lawmakers. IV core members can put their head into more important statergic thinking than worrying about funds. We can atleaset help ourselves by this simple pledge. There is not physical work invovled with it. Commonnnnn..... cheer up and lets get what we want from the new congress.
Do your KARMA and leave the results to time.
I pledge to contribute $40 a month. And more when ever I can.
-- Also guys lets keep the momentum going .. we need more people enrolled and every single one of us opening up their wallets.
hair Audi W12-powered 2011 A8 L
Dhundhun
06-19 12:42 AM
Folks,
I am due for an EAD renewal. However, my I-485 Receipt Notice got lost in mail. :(
Can I still e-file. A lot of you said, we have to send a copy of the receipt notice as a supporting document. Can I do without it.
Any pointers would be really appreciated.
Thank You
-Bipin
You must be having A# on previous EAD - that is required. I filed for my wife and forgot to send copy of I-485. There was no RFE and we got EAD. Refer to http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18737.
I am due for an EAD renewal. However, my I-485 Receipt Notice got lost in mail. :(
Can I still e-file. A lot of you said, we have to send a copy of the receipt notice as a supporting document. Can I do without it.
Any pointers would be really appreciated.
Thank You
-Bipin
You must be having A# on previous EAD - that is required. I filed for my wife and forgot to send copy of I-485. There was no RFE and we got EAD. Refer to http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18737.
more...
GC_1000Watt
07-29 05:43 PM
Thank you gc_1000_waats, My attorney also suggested the same as you had mentioned.
So, what is the difference between filing MTR and re-filing after it is declined? Why can't everybody whose h-1 petition has been declined, re-file for H-1 rather than going through the tedious path of MTR?
Well the reason is money. When you are reapplying you are paying the full fees to USCIS again ( I am sure USCIS likes it :D).
I am not too sure but I guess when you file MTR, you are not required to pay any fees.
So, what is the difference between filing MTR and re-filing after it is declined? Why can't everybody whose h-1 petition has been declined, re-file for H-1 rather than going through the tedious path of MTR?
Well the reason is money. When you are reapplying you are paying the full fees to USCIS again ( I am sure USCIS likes it :D).
I am not too sure but I guess when you file MTR, you are not required to pay any fees.
hot Audi A8 W12.
ita
01-16 01:38 PM
I was trying to find out if it is possible to switch from H1-EAD-H1 all the while staying in the country.
If this switch is possible then will the EAD-H1 switch process be treated as 1 .transfer/ 2.new H1 application(subject to annual quota,lottery)/ 3.something else(recapture)? Though in all the three cases this new H1 will be valid for only whatever time that is left on H1 and not 6 years.
All these days I thought it would be treated as transfer (though there is a gap between the H1).
Thank you.
There is something called as recapturing of lost Days on H1. So for example you were out of USA for some time when you were on H1 you can recapture that period. Try googling "Recapturing of H1".
This way you will not be part of the New quota. Hope this helps
If this switch is possible then will the EAD-H1 switch process be treated as 1 .transfer/ 2.new H1 application(subject to annual quota,lottery)/ 3.something else(recapture)? Though in all the three cases this new H1 will be valid for only whatever time that is left on H1 and not 6 years.
All these days I thought it would be treated as transfer (though there is a gap between the H1).
Thank you.
There is something called as recapturing of lost Days on H1. So for example you were out of USA for some time when you were on H1 you can recapture that period. Try googling "Recapturing of H1".
This way you will not be part of the New quota. Hope this helps
more...
house 2008 Audi A8 4.2 TDI quattro
tnite
09-26 04:05 PM
Hi All,
NSC received my I765 applications on June 21st. I am still waiting for my EAD. I have seen many people from NSC got their approval for the same time frame. Is there anypone in the same boat. Is this something I should be worried about.
Thanks!
See my signature for NSC timeline for my I485
NSC received my I765 applications on June 21st. I am still waiting for my EAD. I have seen many people from NSC got their approval for the same time frame. Is there anypone in the same boat. Is this something I should be worried about.
Thanks!
See my signature for NSC timeline for my I485
tattoo Specifications: Audi: A8 w12
arkanand
06-22 01:31 PM
To EB3June03
I got an RFE for TB test too last week and got all of it done by June 19. I did a TB test in 2002 was 20mm induration which is positive. Because it was positive in 2002, I did not do TB test in 2007 when I sent in my I-485.
I got an RFE for a TB test last week and decided to do another test although I got positive in 2002. I also did one in India in 2000 and was positive then also.
So after two positive tests done in 2000 and 2002, I did one again last week and got positive with 19mm induration (2002 induration was 20 mm). Anyways, I am fine so far and no problem. I attached my chest x-ray which was clear and all documents sent.
Since this my 3rd test and all 3 positive, i think you can do the test and will become positive. However I do want to EMPHASIZE...the doctors and the nurses RECOMMEND NOT taking the test again as it will be positive.
But I took it anyways for sake of RFE and nothing happened.
I am not a doctor and just shared my personal experience if it helps!!
I got an RFE for TB test too last week and got all of it done by June 19. I did a TB test in 2002 was 20mm induration which is positive. Because it was positive in 2002, I did not do TB test in 2007 when I sent in my I-485.
I got an RFE for a TB test last week and decided to do another test although I got positive in 2002. I also did one in India in 2000 and was positive then also.
So after two positive tests done in 2000 and 2002, I did one again last week and got positive with 19mm induration (2002 induration was 20 mm). Anyways, I am fine so far and no problem. I attached my chest x-ray which was clear and all documents sent.
Since this my 3rd test and all 3 positive, i think you can do the test and will become positive. However I do want to EMPHASIZE...the doctors and the nurses RECOMMEND NOT taking the test again as it will be positive.
But I took it anyways for sake of RFE and nothing happened.
I am not a doctor and just shared my personal experience if it helps!!
more...
pictures The new Audi A8L released in
sathyaraj
11-15 05:04 PM
I meant the same, they will ask only for your current employer paystubs and RFEs not the future employer. but if there is substantial difference in wages then there could be some potential problems. This is to asses your intentions whether you will continue to work with the same job as mentioned in ur LC.
No way they will ask for pay-stubs from future employer. With EAD you can do any job. They may ask for pay stubs and W2 from Current employer.
No way they will ask for pay-stubs from future employer. With EAD you can do any job. They may ask for pay stubs and W2 from Current employer.
dresses The Audi A8 L W12 quattro,
prinive
07-17 06:52 PM
Nop
Another silly question.
Do I file again? My packet reached USCIS on July 2nd. It was not returned.
Another silly question.
Do I file again? My packet reached USCIS on July 2nd. It was not returned.
more...
makeup Audi A8 L 6 0 W12 Quattro
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.
girlfriend This A8L W12 is truly a
americandesi
04-06 01:31 PM
Refer http://www.murthy.com/pr_thngs.html and search for
"It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."
As suggested by "Optimystic", any time between 6 to 12 months should be ok.
"It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."
As suggested by "Optimystic", any time between 6 to 12 months should be ok.
hairstyles 2011 Audi A8 L W12 Quattro
sundevil
06-23 04:08 PM
This is not that straight forward either. Family reunification bills also linked family based immigration to this and very likely run into the same battle between pro-business and pro-family(more so of pro-any-immigration, legal or otherwise) legislators. I spoke to an official in Sen. Cornyn's office and they were of the opinion that he might not support that bill as a whole, while he has been very pro-business STEM bill architect and is ok with the recapture of unused EB visas.
Also, at that time they did not have a plan to re-introduce STEM bill or any flavor of it.
We have a huge mountain in front of us and will need a lot of work to get any of these bills to even make it to the floor for discussion let alone pass. Ultimately that is our challenge after CIR dies (or never wakes up) to make these piece meal bills a higher priority in a sea of high priority/publicized legislations.
I take this as another posiitve.
Paves the way for the smaller bills like the family reunification (visa recapture) to be passed without the chirkuts putting stops citing a CIR is required then voting against the CIR.
Agree with u guys lets push for the family reunification bill.
Also, at that time they did not have a plan to re-introduce STEM bill or any flavor of it.
We have a huge mountain in front of us and will need a lot of work to get any of these bills to even make it to the floor for discussion let alone pass. Ultimately that is our challenge after CIR dies (or never wakes up) to make these piece meal bills a higher priority in a sea of high priority/publicized legislations.
I take this as another posiitve.
Paves the way for the smaller bills like the family reunification (visa recapture) to be passed without the chirkuts putting stops citing a CIR is required then voting against the CIR.
Agree with u guys lets push for the family reunification bill.
smuggymba
03-07 11:26 AM
You will retain your PD.
If your employer recalls the 140 it could casue potential disruptions. If you have an EAD, just port your employment to some other employer. That way you will be dealing with less hassles.
I haven't file 485 and have no EAD.
Just an approved 140 with looming layoffs.
If your employer recalls the 140 it could casue potential disruptions. If you have an EAD, just port your employment to some other employer. That way you will be dealing with less hassles.
I haven't file 485 and have no EAD.
Just an approved 140 with looming layoffs.
grupak
12-13 04:11 PM
I'm thinking about pursuing maser degree of Biostatistics.
I heard the job market demand is high and
most jobs require master degree at least.
As a research assistance, biostatistician, research analyst..
Could I apply as EB2 ?
Am I qualifed?
If you are from a non retro country, EB2 will help. Otherwise not really.
To get an EB2, you need a masters degree but your job will also have to require it. I know of folks with masters but their company filed as Eb3. You can apply for EB2-NIW on your own. This requires more than just a degree. You will have to show your field of study is of national interest, and YOU have unique abilities and YOU are a world leader/expert in your chosen field.
I heard the job market demand is high and
most jobs require master degree at least.
As a research assistance, biostatistician, research analyst..
Could I apply as EB2 ?
Am I qualifed?
If you are from a non retro country, EB2 will help. Otherwise not really.
To get an EB2, you need a masters degree but your job will also have to require it. I know of folks with masters but their company filed as Eb3. You can apply for EB2-NIW on your own. This requires more than just a degree. You will have to show your field of study is of national interest, and YOU have unique abilities and YOU are a world leader/expert in your chosen field.
No comments:
Post a Comment