aries
08-07 07:35 PM
I came back on Sunday after landing with a expired visa but valid H1B till 2010
My family had valid visa till sept 07
So we donot need a valid stamped visa to come back. ? We can come back if we have H1 papers.Thanks for the respose.
My family had valid visa till sept 07
So we donot need a valid stamped visa to come back. ? We can come back if we have H1 papers.Thanks for the respose.
Ann Ruben
05-27 05:33 PM
The EB-2 NIW category, like the EB-1 extraordinary ability category, has the advantage of not requiring employer sponsorship---both can be "self-petitions". Depending on the particular facts, it is sometimes easier to qualify for the EB-2 NIW category. It is also possible to file separate I-140 petitions in two or more categories at the same time to increase the liklihood of success.
reachag
06-22 06:50 PM
This has been the practise for quite some time.
Ennada
01-29 11:05 PM
Legalizing unauthorized immigrants would help economy, study says - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/07/immigration.economy/index.html#cnnSTCText)
Washington (CNN) -- Legalization of the more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs and generate more tax revenue, two policy institutes say in a joint report Thursday.
The report by the Center for American Progress and the American Immigration Council estimates that "comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes currently unauthorized immigrants and creates flexible legal limits on future immigration" would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over a 10-year period.
"This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current 'vicious cycle' where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a 'virtuous cycle' of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on wages," study author Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
The study looks at three scenarios: deportation of undocumented workers, temporary worker programs and legalization of the current undocumented population. Deportation would lead to a loss of $2.6 trillion in gross domestic product over 10 years, the report says, while a worker program would lead to a gain of $792 billion. Full legalization would lead to the best economic results, the study says.
Other groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say that unfettered immigration harms the United States and that entry into the nation must remain limited.
When running for president in 2008, Barack Obama said that comprehensive immigration reform would be a priority in his administration, but the issue has been sidelined by health care reform efforts in Congress, the weak economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are indications, however, that the Obama administration aims to revive immigration reform efforts in Congress this year.
The study bases many of its conclusions on an examination of what happened after passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted legal status to 3 million unauthorized immigrants.
A 2006 Pew Hispanic Center report found that 56 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States in 2005 were from Mexico, a total of about 6.2 million unauthorized immigrants.
About 2.5 million unauthorized migrants, or 22 percent of the total, came from the rest of Latin America, primarily from Central America, the Pew Hispanic Center study found.
Of the remaining illegal immigrants, about 13 percent were from Asia, and 3 percent were from Canada and Europe, the Pew study said.
The report released Thursday says U.S. enforcement efforts -- mainly along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico -- are costly and ineffective.
"The number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically since the early 1990s despite equally dramatic increases in the amount of money the federal government spends on immigration enforcement," study author Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
According to the report, the U.S. Border Patrol says its annual budget has increased by 714 percent since 1992, from $326.2 million in fiscal year 1992 to $2.7 billion in fiscal 2009. And the cost ratio of Border Patrol expenditures to apprehensions has increased by 1,041 percent, from $272 per apprehension in 1992 to $3,102 in 2008.
Similarly, the Border Patrol says the number of agents along the border with Mexico has grown by 390 percent, from 3,555 in fiscal 1992 to 17,415 in 2009.
"Yet the unauthorized immigrant population of the United States has roughly tripled in size over the past two decades, from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to 11.9 million in 2008," the report says, noting that illegal immigration appears to have declined slightly since 2007 as a result of the global recession.
The report points out that a long-term study conducted by the University of California, San Diego, found that 92 to 98 percent of unauthorized immigrants keep trying to cross the border until they succeed.
Increased enforcement has several unintended consequences, such as making the Southwestern border more lethal by channeling migrants through remote and rugged mountain and desert areas, the study found. The number of border-crossing deaths doubled in the decade after increased border enforcement started, a 2006 Government Accountability Office report said.
An October 2009 report by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico's National Commission of Human Rights estimates that 5,607 migrants died while crossing the border between 1994 and 2008.
Tightened borders also have created new opportunities for people smugglers, who charged an average $2,000 to $3,000 per person in 2006, the study said. Ninety percent of illegal immigrants now hire smugglers, according to the report.
An examination of trends after the 1986 immigration reform law shows that legalization of unauthorized immigrants has benefits, the report says. Legalized workers earned more, moved on to better jobs and invested more in their education so they could get higher pay and better jobs.
A previous study found that "the wages of unauthorized workers are generally unrelated to their actual skill level," Thursday's report said.
"Unauthorized workers tend to be concentrated in the lowest-wage occupations; they try to minimize the risk of deportation even if this means working for lower wages; and they are especially vulnerable to outright exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Once unauthorized workers are legalized, however, these artificial barriers to upward socioeconomic mobility disappear."
Study author Hinojosa-Ojeda is founding director of the North American Integration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The self-described progressive Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational think tank headed by John Podesta, who was chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.
The Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003, also is a nonpartisan institute.
The report, titled "Raising the Floor for American Workers, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," can be found on the Web.
Washington (CNN) -- Legalization of the more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs and generate more tax revenue, two policy institutes say in a joint report Thursday.
The report by the Center for American Progress and the American Immigration Council estimates that "comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes currently unauthorized immigrants and creates flexible legal limits on future immigration" would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over a 10-year period.
"This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current 'vicious cycle' where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a 'virtuous cycle' of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on wages," study author Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
The study looks at three scenarios: deportation of undocumented workers, temporary worker programs and legalization of the current undocumented population. Deportation would lead to a loss of $2.6 trillion in gross domestic product over 10 years, the report says, while a worker program would lead to a gain of $792 billion. Full legalization would lead to the best economic results, the study says.
Other groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say that unfettered immigration harms the United States and that entry into the nation must remain limited.
When running for president in 2008, Barack Obama said that comprehensive immigration reform would be a priority in his administration, but the issue has been sidelined by health care reform efforts in Congress, the weak economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are indications, however, that the Obama administration aims to revive immigration reform efforts in Congress this year.
The study bases many of its conclusions on an examination of what happened after passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted legal status to 3 million unauthorized immigrants.
A 2006 Pew Hispanic Center report found that 56 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States in 2005 were from Mexico, a total of about 6.2 million unauthorized immigrants.
About 2.5 million unauthorized migrants, or 22 percent of the total, came from the rest of Latin America, primarily from Central America, the Pew Hispanic Center study found.
Of the remaining illegal immigrants, about 13 percent were from Asia, and 3 percent were from Canada and Europe, the Pew study said.
The report released Thursday says U.S. enforcement efforts -- mainly along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico -- are costly and ineffective.
"The number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically since the early 1990s despite equally dramatic increases in the amount of money the federal government spends on immigration enforcement," study author Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
According to the report, the U.S. Border Patrol says its annual budget has increased by 714 percent since 1992, from $326.2 million in fiscal year 1992 to $2.7 billion in fiscal 2009. And the cost ratio of Border Patrol expenditures to apprehensions has increased by 1,041 percent, from $272 per apprehension in 1992 to $3,102 in 2008.
Similarly, the Border Patrol says the number of agents along the border with Mexico has grown by 390 percent, from 3,555 in fiscal 1992 to 17,415 in 2009.
"Yet the unauthorized immigrant population of the United States has roughly tripled in size over the past two decades, from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to 11.9 million in 2008," the report says, noting that illegal immigration appears to have declined slightly since 2007 as a result of the global recession.
The report points out that a long-term study conducted by the University of California, San Diego, found that 92 to 98 percent of unauthorized immigrants keep trying to cross the border until they succeed.
Increased enforcement has several unintended consequences, such as making the Southwestern border more lethal by channeling migrants through remote and rugged mountain and desert areas, the study found. The number of border-crossing deaths doubled in the decade after increased border enforcement started, a 2006 Government Accountability Office report said.
An October 2009 report by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico's National Commission of Human Rights estimates that 5,607 migrants died while crossing the border between 1994 and 2008.
Tightened borders also have created new opportunities for people smugglers, who charged an average $2,000 to $3,000 per person in 2006, the study said. Ninety percent of illegal immigrants now hire smugglers, according to the report.
An examination of trends after the 1986 immigration reform law shows that legalization of unauthorized immigrants has benefits, the report says. Legalized workers earned more, moved on to better jobs and invested more in their education so they could get higher pay and better jobs.
A previous study found that "the wages of unauthorized workers are generally unrelated to their actual skill level," Thursday's report said.
"Unauthorized workers tend to be concentrated in the lowest-wage occupations; they try to minimize the risk of deportation even if this means working for lower wages; and they are especially vulnerable to outright exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Once unauthorized workers are legalized, however, these artificial barriers to upward socioeconomic mobility disappear."
Study author Hinojosa-Ojeda is founding director of the North American Integration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The self-described progressive Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational think tank headed by John Podesta, who was chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.
The Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003, also is a nonpartisan institute.
The report, titled "Raising the Floor for American Workers, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," can be found on the Web.
more...
chanduv23
08-03 11:10 PM
Please navigate to the following threads and do the action items
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11694&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11962
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11694&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11962
whattodo
06-30 12:58 PM
My online status changed from approval sent to pending. Did you any further update?
My attorney received an email notice of I-140 approval (PP) on Mon, June 25. But the online case status showed the application as pending. Finally,today my attorney called and was told that due to "system glitch ", approval notices were sent out in error!! It seems this has done to others too!!
Did anyone else encounter this?
My attorney received an email notice of I-140 approval (PP) on Mon, June 25. But the online case status showed the application as pending. Finally,today my attorney called and was told that due to "system glitch ", approval notices were sent out in error!! It seems this has done to others too!!
Did anyone else encounter this?
more...
CADude
07-02 03:07 PM
YOU HAVE LOT OF MONEY BOSS.. :confused:
I paid for a 2007 labor for 15k. Now I am screwed.
I paid for a 2007 labor for 15k. Now I am screwed.
alparsons
March 24th, 2005, 03:37 AM
My Pentax *ist D acts like that when the batteries become discharged. I put in freshly charged batteries, and I'm up and running again.
more...
chanduv23
10-13 01:00 PM
Mark is from LI. I wonder why he does not show up any more. Has he quit IV?
He is active - he is a big guy now, sometime back, I approached him for his autograph, and he said he does not have time to sign autographs :D:D:D
Jokes apart - Mark is very much in IV. He is involved at the national level more than the State level - he does make sure he is in conference calls and if we have a meetup in his area, he will make it for sure.
He is active - he is a big guy now, sometime back, I approached him for his autograph, and he said he does not have time to sign autographs :D:D:D
Jokes apart - Mark is very much in IV. He is involved at the national level more than the State level - he does make sure he is in conference calls and if we have a meetup in his area, he will make it for sure.
desi3933
03-19 11:14 AM
Is it still possible to transfer your H1B to another employer
Yes
... and return back to USA on the old visa?
No. You will need new visa stamp.
Yes
... and return back to USA on the old visa?
No. You will need new visa stamp.
more...
iptel
10-17 01:28 PM
Hi All,
I have got fingerprint notice and appointment is after 3 weeks in Charlotte NC. I will not be available on that day and do not want to postpone the appointment.
I would like to prepone the appointment and I tried to find Charlotte USCIS local phone number but could not find anywhere. The only number is general 800 number and that was of no use.
Does anyone have any experience with Charlotte office? Can I just go there and will they do fingerprint any day before actual appointment? Charlotte is around 4 hours drive. It will be painful to drive there and find that they don't do fingerprint before appointment day. What day is normally good if I want to take the chance? Have anyone actually called them and prepone the appointment? What is the local office phone number?
These are two many questions. But all are related. Sorry for being so long and thanks in advance for your response...
rangeela....
I from California so no idea about Charlotte office.
Notice of Action that you received tells you things to be done in case you want to change your biometric appointment. Though I am not sure but vaguely remember you have to contact USCIS directly if you want the change. Hope this helps
Good Luck
I have got fingerprint notice and appointment is after 3 weeks in Charlotte NC. I will not be available on that day and do not want to postpone the appointment.
I would like to prepone the appointment and I tried to find Charlotte USCIS local phone number but could not find anywhere. The only number is general 800 number and that was of no use.
Does anyone have any experience with Charlotte office? Can I just go there and will they do fingerprint any day before actual appointment? Charlotte is around 4 hours drive. It will be painful to drive there and find that they don't do fingerprint before appointment day. What day is normally good if I want to take the chance? Have anyone actually called them and prepone the appointment? What is the local office phone number?
These are two many questions. But all are related. Sorry for being so long and thanks in advance for your response...
rangeela....
I from California so no idea about Charlotte office.
Notice of Action that you received tells you things to be done in case you want to change your biometric appointment. Though I am not sure but vaguely remember you have to contact USCIS directly if you want the change. Hope this helps
Good Luck
coolngood4u80
08-23 11:28 AM
My wife is doing her MBA in H4. My PD is July 2008. Being on H4, you can save a lot of money in fees. And also you never know, If at all the visa re-capture bill is passed, you might able to file I-485. So My advice is to continue on H4.
more...
nish
10-06 08:48 PM
when you got H1 did you receive new I-94? If yes, then you should have been working with the employer who did your H1 and not L1 employer. If not you should be able to COS to H1 without issues.
Thanks for your reply....
I have applied H1 through consulate process so I did not get I-94 . I have H1 approval receipt.
During COS process ..I will not be working on project so is this become problem for denial of COS status
Please advice...
Thanks....
Thanks for your reply....
I have applied H1 through consulate process so I did not get I-94 . I have H1 approval receipt.
During COS process ..I will not be working on project so is this become problem for denial of COS status
Please advice...
Thanks....
newuser
05-30 12:35 PM
If I remember my Uncle's word correctly, it was Ted Kennedy who was instrumental in relaxing (changing) the rules for future immigrants in 60 or 70's. Only then, we saw a huge increase in immigrants from India especially doctor's and engineers in 60's & 70's.
more...
GCard_Dream
11-30 09:39 PM
Some of you here know the immigration law much better than I do and I just have a quick question on the "ability to file 485" issue. When congress passes a law, not every little detail is spelled out and it's left up to the related government agency/department to implement/interpret the law and spell out every single implementation detail. Having said that, is the "Ability to file 485 only when PD is current" actually spelled out in the law or is it something how USCIS decided to implement the law? If the later is true, shouldn�t we try to convince USCIS to let everyone file I-485 regardless of the PD. I mean it�s a win-win situation. USCIS gets more revenue because you now have to renew your EAD every year and most of us will be very happy because we can make career/employer changes as necessary.
The reason I ask is because it makes a lot of difference for lot of folks in terms of their own career advancement as well as spouse�s career.
The reason I ask is because it makes a lot of difference for lot of folks in terms of their own career advancement as well as spouse�s career.
gc28262
07-15 05:43 PM
This memo was discussed extensively on this forum in the past and many lawyers have given their opinion.
Summary: You don't need to worry. As long as you are on AOS, you are authorized to stay in the country irrespective of your I-94 expiry date.
Here is the memo
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/revision_redesign_AFM.PDF
Here is what Ron Gotcher said:
I don't care what the non-binding policy memo says, it can't trump a duly promulgated regulation. Indeed, I don't think that they were trying to do that. The problem stems from the fact that the policy memo is a lot of inarticulate babble and is very hard to decipher. In any case, it is a memo, not a statute or a regulation and it must bow in the face of a regulation with contradictory information.
Here is another link:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/506251-post13.html
Summary: You don't need to worry. As long as you are on AOS, you are authorized to stay in the country irrespective of your I-94 expiry date.
Here is the memo
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/revision_redesign_AFM.PDF
Here is what Ron Gotcher said:
I don't care what the non-binding policy memo says, it can't trump a duly promulgated regulation. Indeed, I don't think that they were trying to do that. The problem stems from the fact that the policy memo is a lot of inarticulate babble and is very hard to decipher. In any case, it is a memo, not a statute or a regulation and it must bow in the face of a regulation with contradictory information.
Here is another link:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/506251-post13.html
more...
JoeWings
March 24th, 2005, 10:21 AM
The AA battery holder is for LAST RESORT use only. It was never designed for continous use. If you did it would get very expensive very quickly.
You didn't say what kind of batteries. If they were Ni-Cads or NiMH, they only supply 1.2 volts. The D100 requires 1.5 volts.
Also, you might try mounting a newer AF lens to it just to see if its the older lens. Hopefully the lens you used isn't pre-1977. If so, you may have damaged the body.
You didn't say what kind of batteries. If they were Ni-Cads or NiMH, they only supply 1.2 volts. The D100 requires 1.5 volts.
Also, you might try mounting a newer AF lens to it just to see if its the older lens. Hopefully the lens you used isn't pre-1977. If so, you may have damaged the body.
pa_arora
09-21 12:49 PM
.. by trying to get our provisions included in this bill .. Duh..
I may not know the process completely, but how does it work as the Bill has already been passed. Can somebody amend the Bill after it passed? If yes, dosen't it needs to go thru the the voting again?
ciao
-p
I may not know the process completely, but how does it work as the Bill has already been passed. Can somebody amend the Bill after it passed? If yes, dosen't it needs to go thru the the voting again?
ciao
-p
JunRN
12-18 05:35 PM
So USCIS is still reviewing I-140 even at I-485 stage. That is scary if your I-485 is at different service center than your I-140 approval.
This is really a very scary ride. Hope we can all survive.
This is really a very scary ride. Hope we can all survive.
nfinity
01-20 01:40 PM
fantastic theme and integration! way to go
raydhan
03-19 04:21 PM
I guess OKies are lazy guys. Please post your details so we can help do some more than just benefit from the efforts of others assuming Lady Luck would eventually smile anyway so why bother her now!
Email me at raydhan@hotmail.com
Thanks.
Email me at raydhan@hotmail.com
Thanks.
