royus77
06-25 10:19 PM
Yes, I believe they were filed together - I saw a note in their web site. But why would they file 539 ? she is out of country already. Isn't I539 to extend stay only if u are already in the country ? And yes i already got an appointment in chennai. But the twist is, HR says they "informed" the attorneys to do PP. It is already 11 days and no receipt #. HR is tight lipped as to whether attorneys did infact file PP. If they did not, am i screwed ? Dont you need a receipt# atleast to bump up to PP?
I got notification for the same Receipt number which i had( Applied regular processing on May 15 and bumped to PP on 06/20 .Infact USICS notification came 2 days after my attroney received mail for PP
Receipt Number: EAC0716050372
Application Type: I129 , PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER
Current Status: Request for Premium Processing
Your Request for Premium Processing Service for your I129 PETITION FOR
A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER was received on June 22, 2007. We mailed you a
receipt with information about processing. We will mail you a decision as
soon as processing is complete You can use our processing dates to
estimate when this case will be done. Follow the link below for current
processing dates.
I got notification for the same Receipt number which i had( Applied regular processing on May 15 and bumped to PP on 06/20 .Infact USICS notification came 2 days after my attroney received mail for PP
Receipt Number: EAC0716050372
Application Type: I129 , PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER
Current Status: Request for Premium Processing
Your Request for Premium Processing Service for your I129 PETITION FOR
A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER was received on June 22, 2007. We mailed you a
receipt with information about processing. We will mail you a decision as
soon as processing is complete You can use our processing dates to
estimate when this case will be done. Follow the link below for current
processing dates.
wallpaper quite like geeks in love,
santb1975
02-14 04:36 PM
This is awesome. I wish I went to Medical school like most of my cousins..too late now
marty
10-20 04:48 PM
The dates are retrogressed:
Nebraska Service Center Processing Time Report (10/19/08)
I-485 Application to Register Permanent
Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications July 04, 2007
Nebraska Service Center Processing Time Report (9/15/08)
I-485 Application to Register Permanent
Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications July 08, 2007
Texas Service Center Processing Time Report (10/19/08)
I-485 Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications June 24, 2007
Texas Service Center Processing Time Report (9/15/08)
I-485 Application to Register Permanent
Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications June 23, 2007
Nebraska Service Center Processing Time Report (10/19/08)
I-485 Application to Register Permanent
Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications July 04, 2007
Nebraska Service Center Processing Time Report (9/15/08)
I-485 Application to Register Permanent
Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications July 08, 2007
Texas Service Center Processing Time Report (10/19/08)
I-485 Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications June 24, 2007
Texas Service Center Processing Time Report (9/15/08)
I-485 Application to Register Permanent
Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications June 23, 2007
2011 There have been “geeks” in
ckichannagari
11-09 04:40 PM
from Texas
more...
gchope2k6
03-17 07:25 PM
Thank you guys for all the replies ! I will let you know what happens !
greencard_fever
08-19 06:31 PM
I have the copy from Murthy.com [they still have it on]....
send me ur copy to : 509 355 3413
Thanks,
Here is the link for that document..
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/H1BExtend_07_23_04.pdf
send me ur copy to : 509 355 3413
Thanks,
Here is the link for that document..
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/H1BExtend_07_23_04.pdf
more...
whitecollarslave
02-10 02:20 PM
Thanks for the uplifting message. The problems are many. Lets think about the solutions.
2010 Por otro lado en Geek In Love
peacocklover
12-10 07:16 PM
No politician can understand the pain of long waiting and unknown state of our immigration status in this EB backlog mess ..they are just worried about their vote bank.....We should not surprise if USCIS don't move dates in June or July VB 2011...Instead of waiting for VBs, we have to do somethings to gain support of GC holders and US citizens of our national origin. All of them need to write letters to support our cause through public campaign with the help of human rights organizations. Also, I would think Indian and Chinese business tycoons like Patel brothers need to lobby for our cause to explore their business opportunities for them from our community. We got to do something massive to continuously highlight in mainstream media.
Please be polite if you have any better idea to share with us..
EB2I and EB3 I should wait till Jul Bulletin.
Please be polite if you have any better idea to share with us..
EB2I and EB3 I should wait till Jul Bulletin.
more...
chi_shark
05-18 01:14 PM
Friends,
I am EB2 with Jan 2005 Priority date, I have used AC21 and send documents before through attorney.
For my self
1. Now I got RFE on current employement and offer of proposed employment (description of position) and offered salary
2. Current address proof
For my Spouse
1. Missing G325-A need to submit one (but I did send them initially)
2. Evidence that you maintained non immigrant status
Please let me know if there is any attorney who is good and affordable
Thanks in advance
Shana
did you receive one rfe for both cases or one each for each case?
I am EB2 with Jan 2005 Priority date, I have used AC21 and send documents before through attorney.
For my self
1. Now I got RFE on current employement and offer of proposed employment (description of position) and offered salary
2. Current address proof
For my Spouse
1. Missing G325-A need to submit one (but I did send them initially)
2. Evidence that you maintained non immigrant status
Please let me know if there is any attorney who is good and affordable
Thanks in advance
Shana
did you receive one rfe for both cases or one each for each case?
hair Geeks in Love
newuser
09-01 09:52 AM
Please see an attorney.
more...
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
hot geeks in love gmod.
gc@waiting
09-30 04:39 PM
Hi, can anyone shed some light on what happens if the 485 and 140 both are pending for more than 180 days and the applicant is laid off? Does AC21 come handy or any other way out? Also, only 6 months remain on the H1B(8th year extension).
more...
house + Geeks In Love + by ~bloodonthemoon5 on deviantART
miguy
07-19 09:38 AM
Does anyone know if it is easier to get medical residency on EAD as opposed to H1/J1 or are you considered in the same boat as H1/J1 applicants?
thanks
thanks
tattoo geeks in love, good job,
tnite
09-12 11:33 AM
Mine was delivered at 9.02 am July 2nd and signed by R.Mickels .
Checks havent been cashed.no receipts
Checks havent been cashed.no receipts
more...
pictures Geeks In Love. I Don#39;t Own Lemon Demon, You Can Visit Their Website At
pcs
12-31 09:16 PM
I tried it a lot but could not find it. Actually a lot of us have this situation, where we want to change jobs as the market changed for good.
If you could tell me which thread has this info, it will be wonderful
Have a great 2007
If you could tell me which thread has this info, it will be wonderful
Have a great 2007
dresses the geeky couple in love
jnraajan
03-14 02:04 PM
Yes. You are in status. Filing for I-485 provides you legal status. If you are without project for too long, transferring H1b might not be an option. But you can work on EAD. You will not be out of status.
Good luck with your job hunt.
Good luck with your job hunt.
more...
makeup Geeks In Love. Geeks in Love
cherupally
09-11 10:42 AM
Thankx for the info.
did you send ur 485 application directly to TSC or was it transfered to TSC?
Mine was directly send to TSC. No transfers.
did you send ur 485 application directly to TSC or was it transfered to TSC?
Mine was directly send to TSC. No transfers.
girlfriend Signs: Office Geeks in Love
chanduv23
02-14 04:39 PM
This is awesome. I wish I went to Medical school like most of my cousins..too late now
I wished too :), though i am happy helping Paskal in his efforts now :)
I wished too :), though i am happy helping Paskal in his efforts now :)
hairstyles Tell a Friend about eBook quot;Queen Geeks In Lovequot;
h1techSlave
04-09 09:45 PM
In my experience, the best Realtor is the the guy who would stick with you, when some unexpected things happen in the deal. Example: One of my friends purchased a home. After every thing was done, they noticed a major repair costing a couple of $1000. When my friend talked to the seller, the seller simply washed their hands off, saying the deal is over. Then my friend contacted the Realtor and explained the situation. And the Realtor took over and got the repair done by the seller with only a nominal payment from the buyer.
If you buy a home worth 300,000 and if the Realtor gives back 0.5% (typical) or even a 1% that amounts to only $1500-$3000. Not really a very big amount considering the cost of the house.
I would answer this:
The best realtor is the one who can give you some money back from his commission...:)
If you buy a home worth 300,000 and if the Realtor gives back 0.5% (typical) or even a 1% that amounts to only $1500-$3000. Not really a very big amount considering the cost of the house.
I would answer this:
The best realtor is the one who can give you some money back from his commission...:)
gcpool
10-08 01:25 PM
Came across the same issue and was reffered to a top immigration lawyer who advised as posted by me above
Where did you get this information from? Can you please show a source?
Where did you get this information from? Can you please show a source?
maximus777
05-28 02:44 PM
Are USCIS related expenses like visa/lawyer fees etc. tax deductible? :confused:
No comments:
Post a Comment