vinoddas
07-30 02:37 AM
I liked the joke.. the title originally was: "Difficult Spouse related GC question" ;)
I will definitely consider doing that. I am just afraid that I might get my GC even before I get a chance to do a court marriage.
Thanks for the input.
I will definitely consider doing that. I am just afraid that I might get my GC even before I get a chance to do a court marriage.
Thanks for the input.
wallpaper girlfriend Sad Anime Boy Crying. emo anime boy crying. sad anime boy crying.
man-woman-and-gc
03-09 05:37 PM
I had dream last night, part of which I still remember.
As usual in the evening I went to check my mails and found a mail from USCIS. I opened with surprise , preparing myself mentally , which document would they be requesting now. and.......
I screamed in excitement , it was my greencard. I was shocked, and now I was thinking what can I do with the greencard, I thought I should change my jobs which I always wanted, as my job sucks, but realizing that after a month I am going to retire so, dropped that idea and then I started thinking what else I wanted to do when I'll get my GC, and told my wife the idea of now buying the house, but she told me that as you are going to retire next month lets go back to india and the savings that we are left with after paying the taxes , social security and immigration attorneys, will buy a 2 bedroom apartment in India only.
I asked her what about travelling to Europe that you always wanted, but which we never did for the reason, that what if there will be an issue on travelling with AP,but she told me with my blood pressure and and her arthiritis, it won't be possible.
And then..... I started thinking what I lost in the race to get the GC and what I am left after getting the GC. Sadly threw the GC in the trash and again started browsing the forums on immigrationvoice.org. As after these many years,browsing IV forums became my habit.
And then the alarm woke me up and as usual I started to get ready to spend another day in Paradise, in the country of DREAMS.
I know all of of us are desperate for the Green...but we just can't stop living without it...For heaven's sake, if you want to buy a house, please do...several of us including me have taken advantage of buyers market and living in our own homes...if you want to change a job..go ahead, so many have taken advantage of AC21 or even started a new labor to change their line or grow up in their jobs...if you want to go for Europe tour...go for it...I went there last summer and so did so many others on visitors visa..its an incedible experience which should not be compromised for a GC.
GC does makes life a hell lot easier, but we are all hard working people....who had the courage to come so far from our loved ones....we don't go for what's easy, we do what's necessary.
As usual in the evening I went to check my mails and found a mail from USCIS. I opened with surprise , preparing myself mentally , which document would they be requesting now. and.......
I screamed in excitement , it was my greencard. I was shocked, and now I was thinking what can I do with the greencard, I thought I should change my jobs which I always wanted, as my job sucks, but realizing that after a month I am going to retire so, dropped that idea and then I started thinking what else I wanted to do when I'll get my GC, and told my wife the idea of now buying the house, but she told me that as you are going to retire next month lets go back to india and the savings that we are left with after paying the taxes , social security and immigration attorneys, will buy a 2 bedroom apartment in India only.
I asked her what about travelling to Europe that you always wanted, but which we never did for the reason, that what if there will be an issue on travelling with AP,but she told me with my blood pressure and and her arthiritis, it won't be possible.
And then..... I started thinking what I lost in the race to get the GC and what I am left after getting the GC. Sadly threw the GC in the trash and again started browsing the forums on immigrationvoice.org. As after these many years,browsing IV forums became my habit.
And then the alarm woke me up and as usual I started to get ready to spend another day in Paradise, in the country of DREAMS.
I know all of of us are desperate for the Green...but we just can't stop living without it...For heaven's sake, if you want to buy a house, please do...several of us including me have taken advantage of buyers market and living in our own homes...if you want to change a job..go ahead, so many have taken advantage of AC21 or even started a new labor to change their line or grow up in their jobs...if you want to go for Europe tour...go for it...I went there last summer and so did so many others on visitors visa..its an incedible experience which should not be compromised for a GC.
GC does makes life a hell lot easier, but we are all hard working people....who had the courage to come so far from our loved ones....we don't go for what's easy, we do what's necessary.
eb3retro
08-06 11:36 AM
Received an email from CRIS stating that Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident. Those who are tracking approval, check out IV profile/tracker.
congrats, ur online profile does not say if u r eb2 or 3 and whats ur PD ?
congrats, ur online profile does not say if u r eb2 or 3 and whats ur PD ?
2011 oy. sad anime oy crying.
rheoretro
08-08 07:33 PM
...of meaningless "predictions."
more...
gjoe
11-09 07:07 PM
Lawyers are suckers. There are like leeches ( always there are exceptions though)
mna123
07-30 05:38 PM
I am stuck out side of US for my name check for last 9 months when I applied for my H-1. I have approved I 140. is there any way I can file my I 1485 and Advance parole or any thing to get back into US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
more...
purgan
01-22 11:35 AM
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5585.html
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
2010 Anime Boy Crying.
thomachan72
11-12 06:11 AM
Hi was an educational evaluation submitted along with the application?? Usually for degrees from non-US universities while filing the H1b application they require us to submit an educational evaluation along with copies of the certificates/transcripts. If you had not got your wife's degree evaluated and submitted that report then that might have triggered this rfe??
more...
pappu
03-12 11:21 AM
After a long 5 years I finally received 485 case approved letter for both my case and my spouse's case. However the online status still shows pending. Is this common?. How long would it take for the online case status to be updated.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
Congrats.
Could you update your profile please to help others
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
Congrats.
Could you update your profile please to help others
hair makeup sad anime boy crying.
PlainSpeak
04-07 12:25 PM
When one should feel to donate, they can donate. Doesn't mean that you donated, means everyone should donate.
It is about donation, not Haptaa-vasooli.....
So, before taunting anyone you should understand the meaning of "Donation".
If some one directs a post to you and asks you directly about whether you donated or not then you can then send out posts of the above kind
In the mean time if you believe in the cause donate else dont but there is no use arguing about pros/cons and definition of donation per se or difference between donation and contribution.
It is about donation, not Haptaa-vasooli.....
So, before taunting anyone you should understand the meaning of "Donation".
If some one directs a post to you and asks you directly about whether you donated or not then you can then send out posts of the above kind
In the mean time if you believe in the cause donate else dont but there is no use arguing about pros/cons and definition of donation per se or difference between donation and contribution.
more...
BharatPremi
12-10 12:46 PM
any suggestions if 140 is not approved?
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Yes. If I-140 is not approved, Do not use AC-21.
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Yes. If I-140 is not approved, Do not use AC-21.
hot Anime Boy In Love. I don#39;t; Anime Boy In Love. emo anime boy crying. sad
DSLStart
12-16 10:32 AM
Very first thing hire your own attorney if new company is not providing one. Have your attorney send USCIS G-28 (change of attorney) on your 485 and other pending cases. Make sure the new attorney sends this out on the second day you meet him. This way your ex employer's attorney will have not control over your case. Spend money from your own pocket if new company not providing attorney as this is an important thing.
I'm EB3 (ROW)...PD: May 2006. My I485 is pending more than 18 months and I140 is approved a year ago. Recently, my boss fired me. I left the company and got a better job within a week. thanks god.
Now my ex-employer is calling my lawyer and bringing some alligation against me and asking my lawyer to withdraw my case. He also mentioned to my lawyer that he is going to call the immigration and take action against me by withdrawing my case.
1...Does anyone have any idea how the immigration going to react after listening to his alligation against me?
2...by submitting any paperwork to them can he hamper my proessing?
3...Do i have anything to scare about?
4...what should i do now?
This issues a very crutial to me now. he is one of those nasty desi employer's who underpaid me last 6 years not just acting funny when I'm asking for my rights. He setup the whole alligation against me and have some office staff working and supporting him.
I need help.....please let me know what should i do....please people help me....
I'm EB3 (ROW)...PD: May 2006. My I485 is pending more than 18 months and I140 is approved a year ago. Recently, my boss fired me. I left the company and got a better job within a week. thanks god.
Now my ex-employer is calling my lawyer and bringing some alligation against me and asking my lawyer to withdraw my case. He also mentioned to my lawyer that he is going to call the immigration and take action against me by withdrawing my case.
1...Does anyone have any idea how the immigration going to react after listening to his alligation against me?
2...by submitting any paperwork to them can he hamper my proessing?
3...Do i have anything to scare about?
4...what should i do now?
This issues a very crutial to me now. he is one of those nasty desi employer's who underpaid me last 6 years not just acting funny when I'm asking for my rights. He setup the whole alligation against me and have some office staff working and supporting him.
I need help.....please let me know what should i do....please people help me....
more...
house tattoo sad anime boy crying. emo anime boy crying. Sad Anime Boy Crying.
heywhat
10-24 01:37 PM
I gave you green .. be happy .. and keep helping others
Someone gave me a red dot for this post. Why?? Now folks think twice before trying to help someone on this forum, you might get a negative reputation.
Someone gave me a red dot for this post. Why?? Now folks think twice before trying to help someone on this forum, you might get a negative reputation.
tattoo emo anime boy wallpaper.
newcomer
07-11 10:37 PM
Good one. Could also add the IV logo on it
more...
pictures sad anime boy crying. cute
kak1978
10-26 02:58 PM
I gave you green .. be happy .. and keep helping others
Well, thank you. I am returning the favour.
Well, thank you. I am returning the favour.
dresses Anime Boy
mrajatish
05-21 12:34 PM
How about making sure individuals do not get the original PD when they use labor substitution. This will stop illegal labor trade and help a lot of us.
An USCIS memo in mid 1990's had this:
The memo (priority dates retrogression) of Mr. Rajiv S.Khanna states that beneficiary of substituted labor certificate would get the same priority date.
I was just searching uscis.gov and I found this very interesting !
Now the question is: Who is wright?
Check this out!
d) Priority date. * * * If the United States employer substitutes another alien on a labor certification, the priority date shall be the date the employer requests the substitution.
" The Service has concluded that it is unfair to other aliens who seek to immigrate to the United States on employment-based petitions if the substituted alien gains the priority date of the original alien beneficiary, since those aliens would receive a later priority date than a substituted alien. Currently, in certain employment-based immigrant categories, such as the third preference "other worker" category, an alien who benefits from a labor certification substitution can immigrate ahead of another alien who has been waiting for an immigrant visa for several years. Not only would allowing substituted aliens to receive the earlier priority date be unfair to other intending immigrants, it would also be contrary to the Service's policy of assigning a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer (see 8 CFR 204.5(e)).
Providing a priority date based on an employer's substitution of a labor certification beneficiary also carries the potential for fraud and abuse. Continuing this practice may encourage the creation of a market for labor certifications, particularly in categories in which there is a lengthy wait to receive an immigrant visa. For instance, it is conceivable that the original alien beneficiary might be induced to engage in the fraudulent practice of selling his or her status as a labor certification beneficiary to a substituted alien.
The Service, therefore, proposes to set the priority date for an alien who has been substituted for another alien on a labor certification as the date the employer requested the substitution. This proposed rule will be fair to other aliens who apply under employment-based immigrant categories, and would be consistent with the Service's policy of according a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer, thereby eliminating an inducement to commit fraud.
An USCIS memo in mid 1990's had this:
The memo (priority dates retrogression) of Mr. Rajiv S.Khanna states that beneficiary of substituted labor certificate would get the same priority date.
I was just searching uscis.gov and I found this very interesting !
Now the question is: Who is wright?
Check this out!
d) Priority date. * * * If the United States employer substitutes another alien on a labor certification, the priority date shall be the date the employer requests the substitution.
" The Service has concluded that it is unfair to other aliens who seek to immigrate to the United States on employment-based petitions if the substituted alien gains the priority date of the original alien beneficiary, since those aliens would receive a later priority date than a substituted alien. Currently, in certain employment-based immigrant categories, such as the third preference "other worker" category, an alien who benefits from a labor certification substitution can immigrate ahead of another alien who has been waiting for an immigrant visa for several years. Not only would allowing substituted aliens to receive the earlier priority date be unfair to other intending immigrants, it would also be contrary to the Service's policy of assigning a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer (see 8 CFR 204.5(e)).
Providing a priority date based on an employer's substitution of a labor certification beneficiary also carries the potential for fraud and abuse. Continuing this practice may encourage the creation of a market for labor certifications, particularly in categories in which there is a lengthy wait to receive an immigrant visa. For instance, it is conceivable that the original alien beneficiary might be induced to engage in the fraudulent practice of selling his or her status as a labor certification beneficiary to a substituted alien.
The Service, therefore, proposes to set the priority date for an alien who has been substituted for another alien on a labor certification as the date the employer requested the substitution. This proposed rule will be fair to other aliens who apply under employment-based immigrant categories, and would be consistent with the Service's policy of according a priority date to the alien rather than to the employer, thereby eliminating an inducement to commit fraud.
more...
makeup makeup emo anime boy crying.
mzafar125
08-19 12:40 AM
Folks,
I am a July filer, I called USCIS last week and they stated that they need a new set of biometrics. I had initially given my biometrics after I filed my AOS last year in July 2007. According to what I have read USCIS should be able to retrieve my biometrics from their Biometric storage system. Should I call USCIS and argue with them which may be futile. Or should I just bite the bullet and await the new biometric appointment. I would appreciate any input.
PD: 10/2002
I-140 - Approved Jan 2007
Category - EB3, ROW
I am a July filer, I called USCIS last week and they stated that they need a new set of biometrics. I had initially given my biometrics after I filed my AOS last year in July 2007. According to what I have read USCIS should be able to retrieve my biometrics from their Biometric storage system. Should I call USCIS and argue with them which may be futile. Or should I just bite the bullet and await the new biometric appointment. I would appreciate any input.
PD: 10/2002
I-140 - Approved Jan 2007
Category - EB3, ROW
girlfriend makeup anime boy hands. anime boy emo anime boy crying. eyes crying. watched
![emo anime boy crying. emo-anime-1-girl[1]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u7PDbBTqzOdBUJ8D5DlmZu46OyB7n6Qq3kk-HMhHGu_pUAVm8e1QxIo6hvj8tyi-chIXTXnU1rJhq2IGqtQRKLEcf6WFKW9EKZIYxjGVZw6FfKOTWR0JOFYrOLePmE7g=s0-d "emo-anime-1-girl[1]")
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-21 02:04 PM
suggestions? ^^^^^^^
1) Read the requirement of EB2. Find out who are eligible in this category (Experience and bla bla bla)
Masters Degree, Managerial Position, Bachelor + 5 years are eligible. I am saying this because my friends have applied in these three categories to be eligible for eb2.
2) Your new Labor (PERM) in Eb2 might take up 8-10 months.
3) Apply I-140, I do not know if we have Premium Processing for it.
4) Once I-140 is Approved you can port the EB3 priority date to Eb2.
In your case 04 Eb3 will be now 04 Eb2.
The I -485 will have the old priority date 04 Eb2.
Most of the porting that I have heard is done by jumping ship. You ask your new employer to file in Eb2 and after your I-140 is approved you apply the old priority to EB2.
1) Read the requirement of EB2. Find out who are eligible in this category (Experience and bla bla bla)
Masters Degree, Managerial Position, Bachelor + 5 years are eligible. I am saying this because my friends have applied in these three categories to be eligible for eb2.
2) Your new Labor (PERM) in Eb2 might take up 8-10 months.
3) Apply I-140, I do not know if we have Premium Processing for it.
4) Once I-140 is Approved you can port the EB3 priority date to Eb2.
In your case 04 Eb3 will be now 04 Eb2.
The I -485 will have the old priority date 04 Eb2.
Most of the porting that I have heard is done by jumping ship. You ask your new employer to file in Eb2 and after your I-140 is approved you apply the old priority to EB2.
hairstyles pictures emo anime boy angel emo anime boy crying. how to draw anime boy
h1bnogc
07-27 07:34 PM
I am in similar situation.wondering though..can somebody apply for I485 while his h1b extension denied and file for MTR and decision pending?
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi12ow7yxTVStRIngffgVa133lgndW4b4dqlE9cX8A8F4FTG1F-1PHxuJviLc_jf8-y2DvDSjUD3vdDRxUngj47_CfeV3cEzxjOuvFFWJiYq40ImjRZ4fMjWMPhmIF-ZhtRk21_Rk5uCzw/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi12ow7yxTVStRIngffgVa133lgndW4b4dqlE9cX8A8F4FTG1F-1PHxuJviLc_jf8-y2DvDSjUD3vdDRxUngj47_CfeV3cEzxjOuvFFWJiYq40ImjRZ4fMjWMPhmIF-ZhtRk21_Rk5uCzw/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi12ow7yxTVStRIngffgVa133lgndW4b4dqlE9cX8A8F4FTG1F-1PHxuJviLc_jf8-y2DvDSjUD3vdDRxUngj47_CfeV3cEzxjOuvFFWJiYq40ImjRZ4fMjWMPhmIF-ZhtRk21_Rk5uCzw/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi12ow7yxTVStRIngffgVa133lgndW4b4dqlE9cX8A8F4FTG1F-1PHxuJviLc_jf8-y2DvDSjUD3vdDRxUngj47_CfeV3cEzxjOuvFFWJiYq40ImjRZ4fMjWMPhmIF-ZhtRk21_Rk5uCzw/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
black_logs
05-11 10:43 AM
We are still working on it, the most probable location & time is Bombay Palace at 7 pm but please wait until it is announced officially.
Could some one post the Venue and time? (I guess it is dinner meet)
Thanks
Could some one post the Venue and time? (I guess it is dinner meet)
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment