hpandey
06-02 04:17 PM
can i get a h1 done from a desi employer just to protect the h4 status and join the other company thats offering me a job with my ead.
the h1 from the desi employer will not be having pay stubs but thats only to get h1 status.
As Kaiserose pointed out the H1 quota is done for the year and will not open till April next year and start in Oct 2009 . Considering that you do get an H1 for your wife next year , make sure that she is working coz while applying for her I-485 they might ask for W2's and paystubs for her ( an H1 person cannot be without pay for such an extended period of time ).
Going on F1 is a good idea but I think for that you have to go back to your home country and get it stamped and come back ( can someone confirm this ?? ). This new regulation was put in place due to the security measures after 2001 . But best confirm with your lawyer.
the h1 from the desi employer will not be having pay stubs but thats only to get h1 status.
As Kaiserose pointed out the H1 quota is done for the year and will not open till April next year and start in Oct 2009 . Considering that you do get an H1 for your wife next year , make sure that she is working coz while applying for her I-485 they might ask for W2's and paystubs for her ( an H1 person cannot be without pay for such an extended period of time ).
Going on F1 is a good idea but I think for that you have to go back to your home country and get it stamped and come back ( can someone confirm this ?? ). This new regulation was put in place due to the security measures after 2001 . But best confirm with your lawyer.
jkays94
04-09 11:22 AM
Its still better to try than not to try at all. If any IV members are in Sensenbrenner's, Peter King's (NY) (co-sponsor HR4437) districts as well as Lamar Smith's (TX) they could try and set up some meetings. I think meetings may potentially have a positive effect. As is evident from other postings, some congressional staff members do not know the difference between GC's and H1-Bs, others view high skilled workers the same way they view low skilled workers, and others have no idea about the hardships EB applicants go through, yet it is these same staff members who are charged with keeping the law makers informed or conducting research. While it might be futile to try in some of these cases, it doesn't hurt to do so.
pmpforgc
02-26 12:05 PM
hi
Just wanted to know if some one like me who have masters or more (phD) in Engineering and have backgorund in bioprocessing or food processing as well as research and academics . What may be the best IT options.
Reason I am asking is with current PhD and Academic jobs it is lot less pay (say in around 50 K). So wanted to explore other option if some how get laid off or fired one day which may be comming soon in a year or so.
though I had not done any programmming any day, I did little bit in my bachelors and at that time I thought I can do it well. But than really never had chance to work on programming stuff, as worked more with applied engineering in bio and food area.
thanks for input.
Just wanted to know if some one like me who have masters or more (phD) in Engineering and have backgorund in bioprocessing or food processing as well as research and academics . What may be the best IT options.
Reason I am asking is with current PhD and Academic jobs it is lot less pay (say in around 50 K). So wanted to explore other option if some how get laid off or fired one day which may be comming soon in a year or so.
though I had not done any programmming any day, I did little bit in my bachelors and at that time I thought I can do it well. But than really never had chance to work on programming stuff, as worked more with applied engineering in bio and food area.
thanks for input.
kaisersose
06-02 04:05 PM
can i get a h1 done from a desi employer just to protect the h4 status and join the other company thats offering me a job with my ead.
the h1 from the desi employer will not be having pay stubs but thats only to get h1 status.
For you or for her? Getting a H is not easy (you will have to wait till Oct 2009) and maintaining a H without paystubs is not legal either. Should be far more easier & quicker for her to get a F visa.
In general, avoid getting into risk situations that you cannot get out of. In the long run, being safe with immigration matters and resisting the temptation to make a few extra bucks will be more beneficial.
the h1 from the desi employer will not be having pay stubs but thats only to get h1 status.
For you or for her? Getting a H is not easy (you will have to wait till Oct 2009) and maintaining a H without paystubs is not legal either. Should be far more easier & quicker for her to get a F visa.
In general, avoid getting into risk situations that you cannot get out of. In the long run, being safe with immigration matters and resisting the temptation to make a few extra bucks will be more beneficial.
more...
ilikekilo
07-17 08:42 PM
I think it is high time we need to set rules and roles for senior member alike - they are supposed to bring people to the group not the otherway around - We are setting a wrong precedence - A guy who has contributed more than you, can ask you to lay off ilikekilo, and that is not far away.
Anyways, Some of the members have become super stars by being here and wanting to do more so let seniors show the real attitude to freshmen.
Thanks for your understanding
so what is your point? ?
FYI ksirh its noth how much u contributed? its the way u ask! pl wake up
Anyways, Some of the members have become super stars by being here and wanting to do more so let seniors show the real attitude to freshmen.
Thanks for your understanding
so what is your point? ?
FYI ksirh its noth how much u contributed? its the way u ask! pl wake up
b2visahelp
06-15 06:22 PM
Hi,
My parents' and 2 brothers' B2 visas got rejected yesterday. The VO didn't state the refusal reason. He didn't stamp anything on their passports. I got my GC through asylum, and will get married in Nov. 2009. I supplied a formal letter from my pastor about the wedding that it's real. And my parents stated that they are not bringing my youngest brother to the US because he has school. During the interview, the VO asked them about me. He knew that I got my GC through asylum. He asked if I work or go to school. My parents answered honestly that I'm currently working to support myself.
My parents didn't show their bank account, certificate of properties and business because the VO didn't ask for it. Should they show them to VO eventhough he didn't ask to see it?
Now, we're preparing to apply B2 visa for a second time. Here are my questions:
1. When do you think they should apply for the visa again?
2. What can we prepare to show proofs that they will definitely go back to their country? Should we prepare a letter stating reasons why they won't immigrate to US?
3. They are taking care of my elderly grandfather, 80 years old. Should they bring a picture of him?
3. Will they have a better chance if they left all my 3 siblings at home to give more reason they will definitely go back?
My parents definitely don't want to immigrate to the US.
Help...help....please...I really want them to attend my wedding.
Thanks a bunch for all of your advise!
My parents' and 2 brothers' B2 visas got rejected yesterday. The VO didn't state the refusal reason. He didn't stamp anything on their passports. I got my GC through asylum, and will get married in Nov. 2009. I supplied a formal letter from my pastor about the wedding that it's real. And my parents stated that they are not bringing my youngest brother to the US because he has school. During the interview, the VO asked them about me. He knew that I got my GC through asylum. He asked if I work or go to school. My parents answered honestly that I'm currently working to support myself.
My parents didn't show their bank account, certificate of properties and business because the VO didn't ask for it. Should they show them to VO eventhough he didn't ask to see it?
Now, we're preparing to apply B2 visa for a second time. Here are my questions:
1. When do you think they should apply for the visa again?
2. What can we prepare to show proofs that they will definitely go back to their country? Should we prepare a letter stating reasons why they won't immigrate to US?
3. They are taking care of my elderly grandfather, 80 years old. Should they bring a picture of him?
3. Will they have a better chance if they left all my 3 siblings at home to give more reason they will definitely go back?
My parents definitely don't want to immigrate to the US.
Help...help....please...I really want them to attend my wedding.
Thanks a bunch for all of your advise!
more...
ahaadi
01-08 01:46 PM
You can get the passport the same day using tatkaal service but you need to spend the whole day in consulate or you can get it in 3 days.
I got it from NY consulate. Also tatkaal service charges 140 bucks and regular one is 40 bucks.
I got it in a week, I got it from SF Consulate.
I got it from NY consulate. Also tatkaal service charges 140 bucks and regular one is 40 bucks.
I got it in a week, I got it from SF Consulate.
Ramba
12-23 04:11 PM
If i-485 has been pending for more than 6 months and I suddenly get laid off can i leave the country and come back when it's approved? Or can I leave the country and come back in a few months with or without job offer?
No you cant do that. One should not leave country when 485 pending. Once you laid off from sponsor you can not do counsural processing also. Travelling in AP should be for a mimimum period. It will be big mistake, if you leave country without job offer. No one knows when they issue RFE for employment verification during your 485 pending period. If you do not have job when they issue RFE, thats it. Bottomline is, it is better to be employed during 485 pending and stay in the country to reply any RFE.
No you cant do that. One should not leave country when 485 pending. Once you laid off from sponsor you can not do counsural processing also. Travelling in AP should be for a mimimum period. It will be big mistake, if you leave country without job offer. No one knows when they issue RFE for employment verification during your 485 pending period. If you do not have job when they issue RFE, thats it. Bottomline is, it is better to be employed during 485 pending and stay in the country to reply any RFE.
more...
eb3_nepa
04-13 08:41 PM
The following doc, 'How the senate bill becomes a law' does not mention any waiting period after President's sign the bill to become a law
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/legprocessflowchart.pdf
My point exactly.
So then maybe the wait is only the 3 months (90 days) that Sen Sessions wishes to impose, correct?
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/legprocessflowchart.pdf
My point exactly.
So then maybe the wait is only the 3 months (90 days) that Sen Sessions wishes to impose, correct?
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
intheyan
03-31 11:27 PM
yes u can
rajbgp2002
12-22 05:56 PM
If a person has filed I-485 at least 6 months back and got laid off from job,
How much time does the rule permit to find another similar job and use AC 21.
Is this similar to H1B grace period or say no grace period.
thanks
How much time does the rule permit to find another similar job and use AC 21.
Is this similar to H1B grace period or say no grace period.
thanks
more...
krupa
04-08 04:39 PM
I believe the intention of not moving too much beyond jul 06 , may be to make some spill over benfit happen to EB3 also. If they open the gate for EB2 now, lots of 485 application may come in and there may not be spill over to EB3. :)
Krupa
Krupa
javanmard
03-22 02:51 AM
Hi bfadlia,
Did u receive ur extension? My case is pretty same, my receipt notice date has passed but no change in LUD. My case is in CSC. Have u received any RFE? Some ppl were saying that it takes around 3 months for getting approval from CSC.
Thanks
Did u receive ur extension? My case is pretty same, my receipt notice date has passed but no change in LUD. My case is in CSC. Have u received any RFE? Some ppl were saying that it takes around 3 months for getting approval from CSC.
Thanks
more...
Ann Ruben
05-13 03:20 PM
I you manage a team of engineers who themselves hold university degrees, you may very well qualify for L-1A status and your chance of getting an approval could be better than if you refile the L-1B.
drirshad
04-19 07:13 PM
Go to http://www.shusterman.com/
Got some updates as to whats going on behind the curtains ..
Gear up & give sometime to fight against the anti-immg groups who have already started contacting the law makers & congressmen ......
Got some updates as to whats going on behind the curtains ..
Gear up & give sometime to fight against the anti-immg groups who have already started contacting the law makers & congressmen ......
more...
viva
01-31 11:13 PM
he is extremely knowledgable person in terms of immigration, he has 5000+ posts on immigration forums and has helped countless people with immigration issues. His name seems to be Nadeem and is a Canadian immigrant and is a CPA and his EB3 petition is in retrogression.
In recent times he started stereotyping immigrants and make every immigrant feel that they are breaking laws in some way or the other and became unpopular.
He was not in support of IV and was under a strong feeling that a bunch of immigrants are wasting precious time and money. But now he seems to change his stance and has stepped into IV and has become a member. He is very helpful in terms of his skills and willingness to share his knowledge and help people.
He does audit to a lot of h1b dependent employers and has direct influence and can strongly recommend them to contribute for this cause. Most of his analysis about patterns of visa distribution comee out as expected but in recent times there were instances where his analysis went wrong too.
Overall he is definitely of great help if he wishes to dedicate some time of his to this cause and help in all ways possible.
if he was a cfo or is a cfo, as he claims on previous posts, why is he filinf under eb-3? why can't he file under eb-2 or eb-1? isn't eb-1 for multinational executives?
most cfos would be toiling inside their companies, rather than spending time on forums. may be, he is just getting to act out his dream of being a cfo on the forums. may be, he thinks he can get away with claiming to be anything. after all, who is going to check? i could say i am the ceo of citibank or intel or microsoft. who is going to check on that? i can post a link to the sec website where my name will be shown as steve balmer.
people can claim to be a lot of things in this world..just don't believe everything they say without proof....
if i said that i am a talking elephant, would you believe me? probably, no. so, why would u believe that united nations is what he says he is?
In recent times he started stereotyping immigrants and make every immigrant feel that they are breaking laws in some way or the other and became unpopular.
He was not in support of IV and was under a strong feeling that a bunch of immigrants are wasting precious time and money. But now he seems to change his stance and has stepped into IV and has become a member. He is very helpful in terms of his skills and willingness to share his knowledge and help people.
He does audit to a lot of h1b dependent employers and has direct influence and can strongly recommend them to contribute for this cause. Most of his analysis about patterns of visa distribution comee out as expected but in recent times there were instances where his analysis went wrong too.
Overall he is definitely of great help if he wishes to dedicate some time of his to this cause and help in all ways possible.
if he was a cfo or is a cfo, as he claims on previous posts, why is he filinf under eb-3? why can't he file under eb-2 or eb-1? isn't eb-1 for multinational executives?
most cfos would be toiling inside their companies, rather than spending time on forums. may be, he is just getting to act out his dream of being a cfo on the forums. may be, he thinks he can get away with claiming to be anything. after all, who is going to check? i could say i am the ceo of citibank or intel or microsoft. who is going to check on that? i can post a link to the sec website where my name will be shown as steve balmer.
people can claim to be a lot of things in this world..just don't believe everything they say without proof....
if i said that i am a talking elephant, would you believe me? probably, no. so, why would u believe that united nations is what he says he is?
good idea
09-13 07:59 PM
Common guys we need to make some thing better for EB3 folks.
I can feel optimism in your message but the reality is only (better) change (from candidate prospective) in rules can make things better...
I can feel optimism in your message but the reality is only (better) change (from candidate prospective) in rules can make things better...
amitjoey
05-19 04:45 PM
If I assume that every year EB3-India gets 5000 GC-Visa. From 2001 - 2008 Total = 40,000 EB3-India Visas
Is number of applications in 2001 and 2002 is > 40,000.
Its very hard to believe.
Its not 40,000 labor or 140's dude every GC is minimum 2 (applicant + spouse) in some cases if you add children then it can consume 3-4 visa's from the quota and that is what is making the line even more longer.
The reason it is stuck at 2001 is because a lot of people that did not belong to the EB3 queue got visas out of EB3 IN 2001. This was because of a law that was passed in 2000 that sunset in April 2001. Thousands of so called "special immigrants".. (Illegals- I guess) got them. See: http://www.usavisanow.com/245iext.html
These were individuals that came in - illegally, but their employers could not file for them. Interestingly and Ironic is that legals were not eligible to apply under that act - LIFE ACT, 2001
http://www.brama.com/news/press/010405_lifeact2000.html
Also, add the wastage that happens every year. USCIS wastes (does not use) a lot of visas every year and they lapse.
Also some years, when there was a visa recapture (I believe 2003-2004).. 50,000 of the so-counted EB3's were given away to nurses. There was a special category.
Is number of applications in 2001 and 2002 is > 40,000.
Its very hard to believe.
Its not 40,000 labor or 140's dude every GC is minimum 2 (applicant + spouse) in some cases if you add children then it can consume 3-4 visa's from the quota and that is what is making the line even more longer.
The reason it is stuck at 2001 is because a lot of people that did not belong to the EB3 queue got visas out of EB3 IN 2001. This was because of a law that was passed in 2000 that sunset in April 2001. Thousands of so called "special immigrants".. (Illegals- I guess) got them. See: http://www.usavisanow.com/245iext.html
These were individuals that came in - illegally, but their employers could not file for them. Interestingly and Ironic is that legals were not eligible to apply under that act - LIFE ACT, 2001
http://www.brama.com/news/press/010405_lifeact2000.html
Also, add the wastage that happens every year. USCIS wastes (does not use) a lot of visas every year and they lapse.
Also some years, when there was a visa recapture (I believe 2003-2004).. 50,000 of the so-counted EB3's were given away to nurses. There was a special category.
go_guy123
01-26 03:49 PM
US needs EB1 and Ph.Ds
Others not contribute as much
Actually US needs innovation and good talent. Not all PhD are that extra ordinary.
One goes through the motions of adding incremental knowledge (that quality also depends of the reputation of the university). Most PhDs struggle from one post doc to another.
Piled Higher and Deeper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piled_Higher_and_Deeper)
PS: I mylelf dropped out of PhD like many of my friends. My experience was that
only a few PhD students were doing "good" and relevant research. Rest were very acedemic in nature and all about working on questionable commercial value of DARPA and NSF grants.
Others not contribute as much
Actually US needs innovation and good talent. Not all PhD are that extra ordinary.
One goes through the motions of adding incremental knowledge (that quality also depends of the reputation of the university). Most PhDs struggle from one post doc to another.
Piled Higher and Deeper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piled_Higher_and_Deeper)
PS: I mylelf dropped out of PhD like many of my friends. My experience was that
only a few PhD students were doing "good" and relevant research. Rest were very acedemic in nature and all about working on questionable commercial value of DARPA and NSF grants.
mpadapa
10-09 01:32 PM
IMHO.. Its better to resolve the out-of-status issues before U file for 485. Please consult a good attorney.
If things are cleared out, its a smooth sailing for U since U are from EB2 ROW. Since U are planning to marry, its better to marry and then file for 485. U donno sometimes USCIS goes into an approval frenzy, U might get U'r GC approved soon and thus U'r wife might have to wait for yrs to get GC. If U'r wife comes to US before U'r GC approval, its a different story as explained by glus.
If things are cleared out, its a smooth sailing for U since U are from EB2 ROW. Since U are planning to marry, its better to marry and then file for 485. U donno sometimes USCIS goes into an approval frenzy, U might get U'r GC approved soon and thus U'r wife might have to wait for yrs to get GC. If U'r wife comes to US before U'r GC approval, its a different story as explained by glus.
No comments:
Post a Comment