bazuka6
10-20 09:14 PM
I seriously think IV should take specific instances of past delays due to FBI checks and USCIS delays and highlight these.. A letter campaign supporting Mayorkas should be sent to senatiors.
Letter must specifically highlight how Grassley's allegations are unfounded (based on his history) and how Mayorkas has increased transparency within USCIS and helped legitimate aliens get their immigration benefits in a timely fashion instead of perpetuating bureaucratic delays
Letter must specifically highlight how Grassley's allegations are unfounded (based on his history) and how Mayorkas has increased transparency within USCIS and helped legitimate aliens get their immigration benefits in a timely fashion instead of perpetuating bureaucratic delays
wallpaper Jim and kaley lt;3
kondur_007
07-30 09:56 PM
then you are in a good shape. Make sure you keep ur employer and attorney aware of everything.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Michael chertoff
04-07 07:33 PM
Hmm. Another kela. Don't worry MC, your time will come.
Bhiyaa aapkee baat samajh me nahee aayee...aap kahna kya chahte hai.
Bhiyaa aapkee baat samajh me nahee aayee...aap kahna kya chahte hai.
2011 jim parsons and kaley cuoco.
zigglar001
11-10 12:35 PM
Hi ,
My 180 days have passed and I have an approved 140. My job was filed in 2002 in EB2 as s/w engg. In this job i moved to project manager in IT. Now I am getting a job offer for an awesome company, nice pay and as a program manager. the role is still in IT but it will be more managing.
Would this be a safe bet to take by choosing AC-21?
Please reply. i need to respond to them in a couple of days....
My 180 days have passed and I have an approved 140. My job was filed in 2002 in EB2 as s/w engg. In this job i moved to project manager in IT. Now I am getting a job offer for an awesome company, nice pay and as a program manager. the role is still in IT but it will be more managing.
Would this be a safe bet to take by choosing AC-21?
Please reply. i need to respond to them in a couple of days....
more...
santb1975
03-09 11:06 PM
I talked to attorney Murthy about this issue a few weeks ago. My 140 was approved July 2007. The salary I currently make 485 is 10K less than the salary mentioned on my Labor. I work for a speciality Pharma company with steady revenues. They are a public company as well. Two years ago my company Attorney(Fragomen) and my HR said that should not be a problem since GC is for a future position etc. When I checked with Attorney Murthy she said that is true but if you get a strict immigration officer he can say that the prevailing wage determination for your job was done two years ago and you are still not making that money. She said it is better to make the $$ mentioned on my labor now. I am going to ask my company attorney the same question and see what he says. I have a lot of respect for my company's attorney
puskeygadha
07-17 02:33 PM
any news from fragemon
more...
tulips
05-25 08:52 AM
Thank you for your reply! He has been out for 9 months now but visited in between. He used H4 to come back and did not get new AP. We did file taxes. How do I know if the application is still valid and it's okay to use EAD?
2010 jim parsons kaley cuoco
STAmisha
11-14 02:17 PM
Got notification from lawyer that my RIR for LC got rejected. It is pending in Phily BEC with a PD of Oct 2003.
What does this mean? Kiss my LC good bye? Please explian
What does this mean? Kiss my LC good bye? Please explian
more...
mk26
05-27 08:28 AM
Looks like this is another bigger issue after our green card issue. Can we do something about this?
hair jim parsons kaley cuoco
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
more...
Michael chertoff
04-07 05:58 PM
Please stop this discussion about US university and Indian university or for that matter about octopus
This thread is about Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins so if someone has seen the May 2011 VB lets talk about it
Agreed. just talk about Bulletin.
This thread is about Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins so if someone has seen the May 2011 VB lets talk about it
Agreed. just talk about Bulletin.
hot kaley cuoco and jim parsons
aadimanav
08-31 11:54 AM
I think we all should VOTE in this poll.
more...
house jim parsons kaley. Community fan club for jim deal the adorable kaley annual
vin13
07-28 10:41 AM
As others have already mentioned each state has a different rule. Based on your state, you may be eligible for unemployment benefits. But what is more important is that now you are saying you do not have a job by claiming unemployment. Green Cards are for future job. If you are on unemployment compensation, how would you prove your eligibility for green card if questioned.
Dependent family members can avail unemployment without much concern of jeopardizing their Green Card.
Dependent family members can avail unemployment without much concern of jeopardizing their Green Card.
tattoo Jim Parsons | Kaley Cuoco
Anders �stberg
June 16th, 2005, 09:29 AM
These look fine on my editing PC but are too dark on my work PC...
...how's it look where you're at? :)
Also, the second picture is uncropped from the camera, I kind of like the frame
the background creates, but do you think it should be cropped tighter?
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/647/thumbs/JH5Q9175_Skata.jpg (http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/25912/cat/647) http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/647/thumbs/JH5Q9169_Skata.jpg (http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/25919/cat/647)
...how's it look where you're at? :)
Also, the second picture is uncropped from the camera, I kind of like the frame
the background creates, but do you think it should be cropped tighter?
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/647/thumbs/JH5Q9175_Skata.jpg (http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/25912/cat/647) http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/647/thumbs/JH5Q9169_Skata.jpg (http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/25919/cat/647)
more...
pictures Comic-Con 2010: Jim Parsons
lvinaykumar
08-15 07:54 PM
good luck with your green...
dresses jim parsons kaley. Johnny Galecki, Jim Parsons, Kaley Cuoco and Simon
san3297
12-28 01:14 PM
Received H1b approval last week. I got it approved for only 1 year though. I sent all the originals along with self addressed fedex postage paid envelope . USCIS safely posted back using the same envelope. I also sent them transcripts attested by registar in sealed envelope. Thanks for all the forum members who answered my queries.
more...
makeup Jim amp; Kaley
centaur
07-28 04:18 PM
:)
One more expert...:D
One more expert...:D
girlfriend kaley
karthikgk
02-19 12:54 PM
All,
Even though there are other threads on this topic, I wanted to start a separate thread, as I had some unique questions. I am at the zenith of frustration and at the age of 37, I feel like my career is slipping away while waiting for GC :(
My employment scenario:
- Been with the current employer since Jan 2001
- Less than 5 years experience before I joined the current employer
- Have an MBA that was not used to the GC application (applied in July 2003) since I was a programmer at the time of GC application
My GC scenario:
- Applied for GC in July 2003 under EB3
- Applied for I-485 in July 2007
- Approved I140 and EAD in hand
- Even though I have EAD, I continue to use my H1
My new role in the job:
- After being in the job for as long as I have been, I am now doing Business Development that makes use of my MBA
My questions:
1) Lawyer asked me to wait it out for the GC instead of trying to convert the application to GC2. Lawyer says new labor applications are getting under scrutiny a lot more than before and he think it is prudent to wait. Is this reasonable?
2) What are my other options - do you think I can ask my employer to apply fresh EB2 application for the business development role and show my MBA? Not sure if they will agree to my request, but wanted to make sure that it is even possible to do that.
3) Can I change my job based on H1? Or change the job based on EAD? If either way I change my job, can I then ask the new employer to apply for my GC under EB2? If I change the job, and if my current employer agrees (I don't why he would, but just for understanding sake), can I retain my current EB3 application?
Any advice is greatly appreciated. I am at a point of giving it up and going back to India, but then that is another big decision,
Regards,
Even though there are other threads on this topic, I wanted to start a separate thread, as I had some unique questions. I am at the zenith of frustration and at the age of 37, I feel like my career is slipping away while waiting for GC :(
My employment scenario:
- Been with the current employer since Jan 2001
- Less than 5 years experience before I joined the current employer
- Have an MBA that was not used to the GC application (applied in July 2003) since I was a programmer at the time of GC application
My GC scenario:
- Applied for GC in July 2003 under EB3
- Applied for I-485 in July 2007
- Approved I140 and EAD in hand
- Even though I have EAD, I continue to use my H1
My new role in the job:
- After being in the job for as long as I have been, I am now doing Business Development that makes use of my MBA
My questions:
1) Lawyer asked me to wait it out for the GC instead of trying to convert the application to GC2. Lawyer says new labor applications are getting under scrutiny a lot more than before and he think it is prudent to wait. Is this reasonable?
2) What are my other options - do you think I can ask my employer to apply fresh EB2 application for the business development role and show my MBA? Not sure if they will agree to my request, but wanted to make sure that it is even possible to do that.
3) Can I change my job based on H1? Or change the job based on EAD? If either way I change my job, can I then ask the new employer to apply for my GC under EB2? If I change the job, and if my current employer agrees (I don't why he would, but just for understanding sake), can I retain my current EB3 application?
Any advice is greatly appreciated. I am at a point of giving it up and going back to India, but then that is another big decision,
Regards,
hairstyles Galecki Jim Parsons Kaley
desigun
04-26 05:41 PM
Only yesterday i called up to check for my mom, who will be coming to US from India. The CS rep clearly told me that she is allowed 2 X 50 lbs and 1 Carry on (18lbs) in her journey.
Student with no hopes
12-10 09:55 AM
/
summitpointe
04-16 02:53 PM
Open an MTR ASAP. It sometimes takes lot of time(may be one year) for final decision.
As your H1B is valid for another one year, just to have a support talk with your attorney about filing a PERM labor ASAP.
As your H1B is valid for another one year, just to have a support talk with your attorney about filing a PERM labor ASAP.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق