gulute
10-02 02:39 PM
Did you use an approved labor?
the RFE was on Ability to Pay
the RFE was on Ability to Pay
wallpaper inspirational posters
Libra
08-31 12:01 PM
All midwest members please go to this thread and cast your vote
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12599
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12599
dixie
11-06 04:43 PM
It doesnt matter whether the clients of the employer are for-profit or not (obviously). The only thing relevant is whether or not the organization for which your wife will work is classified as not-for-profit.
My Wife, if everything works out, will be working in a Finance related field for a Health Care related service providing financial services to many many hospitals.
I was wondering if I could use the Heallth care angle for the H1b Non Cap
My Wife, if everything works out, will be working in a Finance related field for a Health Care related service providing financial services to many many hospitals.
I was wondering if I could use the Heallth care angle for the H1b Non Cap
2011 Funny Quotes Posters. funny
kurtz_wolfgang
08-15 01:30 PM
Probably because Lot of people in IV are hurting because of people who jumped the line by using somebody else�s LC and people are getting ahead of some one who are there in line for 6-8 years.\
I am NOT the one who gave you red. I never give anyone red even if i don't like the post..
I will just give you my "green"
Thanks SKD.....I appreciate your green.
Lot of people in IV are hurting because of people who jumped the line by using somebody else�s LC.
>> I agree with that, but it was not intended. Actually when I applied for substitute labor, I didnt know what was the importance of GC. I applied within 15 days, of my arrival in usa, since my employer asked me to (for financial purpose). I woe the day I signed the papers. My life has been (worse than hell) at the mercy of my employer. I came here temporary, thinking will enjoy life here in USA for a few years. You don't have such issues in Europe.
I am NOT the one who gave you red. I never give anyone red even if i don't like the post..
I will just give you my "green"
Thanks SKD.....I appreciate your green.
Lot of people in IV are hurting because of people who jumped the line by using somebody else�s LC.
>> I agree with that, but it was not intended. Actually when I applied for substitute labor, I didnt know what was the importance of GC. I applied within 15 days, of my arrival in usa, since my employer asked me to (for financial purpose). I woe the day I signed the papers. My life has been (worse than hell) at the mercy of my employer. I came here temporary, thinking will enjoy life here in USA for a few years. You don't have such issues in Europe.
more...
veereddy
03-13 12:20 PM
Congratulations and Best Wishes to you and your family.
GC_1000Watt
12-09 05:14 PM
I have applied for my first H1B extension in the month of July. Receievd an RFE on Client and current work location and was replied in the month of november.
on Decebmer 7 USCICS website shows "Your extension has been denied, and a denial notice has been sent."
My I-94 expired on Oct-10 2009 and H1B was valid till 30 Sep. 2009. Here are my questions:
Am I an illegal resident now?
Until when can I stay in the us?
Should my employer appeal the case and by when should he do that, is there premium processing for this?
How long does the appeal process take ?
Can I work while the case is appealed?
How many days can I stay in us after the case is appealed?
How do I transfer to a new employer E2 (Premium Processing) and when can I apply for the new h1b (after the case is appealed or any time)?
What are the chances of approvals in Premium processing in Current Market?
Can I start working once the receipt for the new h1b petition comes in?
If not, can I work once the h1 is approved or should I go to India and reenter to start working?
Can i transfer my approved I140 to a new employer ?
I will really appreciate your feedback on this.
Thanks in advance.
on Decebmer 7 USCICS website shows "Your extension has been denied, and a denial notice has been sent."
My I-94 expired on Oct-10 2009 and H1B was valid till 30 Sep. 2009. Here are my questions:
Am I an illegal resident now?
Until when can I stay in the us?
Should my employer appeal the case and by when should he do that, is there premium processing for this?
How long does the appeal process take ?
Can I work while the case is appealed?
How many days can I stay in us after the case is appealed?
How do I transfer to a new employer E2 (Premium Processing) and when can I apply for the new h1b (after the case is appealed or any time)?
What are the chances of approvals in Premium processing in Current Market?
Can I start working once the receipt for the new h1b petition comes in?
If not, can I work once the h1 is approved or should I go to India and reenter to start working?
Can i transfer my approved I140 to a new employer ?
I will really appreciate your feedback on this.
Thanks in advance.
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
2010 These motivating posters also
dreamgc_real
12-06 02:06 PM
Dream Act is a moral issue and being fair to the kids who have made this country their own.
Recapture - Legal immigrants who lost visa numbers due to bureaucratic mistakes, should not be punished. Most of the people seeking recapture have followed every law written in the books and this too is a moral issue - to be fair to the people who did everything right.
Granted, both the dream act students and eb immigrants are in the mess, and it needs to be fixed. The only difference is that the Dream kids have been more vocal and active in getting people to back their issue than we have done.
Recapture - Legal immigrants who lost visa numbers due to bureaucratic mistakes, should not be punished. Most of the people seeking recapture have followed every law written in the books and this too is a moral issue - to be fair to the people who did everything right.
Granted, both the dream act students and eb immigrants are in the mess, and it needs to be fixed. The only difference is that the Dream kids have been more vocal and active in getting people to back their issue than we have done.
more...
rick_rajvanshi
04-22 12:19 PM
There is a high possibility that more RFEs are being issued as there is a lot of background processing going on. Th economy is down and there might be instructions from top to review cases closely.
A denial can happen when RFEs are not responded in time.
From what I have been seeing on forum - all RFEs that people got for i 485 are not something difficult to answer.
If you look at RFEs for h1bs - some are very complicated and these days Attorneys are charging around 3K for responding to RFE with no guarantee
I think it is quite normal that we are getting barrage of RFEs from USCIS. This perhaps is not due to recession or economy at all. It is also not unusual in my opinion. You are simply forgetting the fact that during July-Aug 2007 , so many of us filed 485s together. So its quite natural that when these cases are being processed, we are getting RFEs to re-check for authentications and cases are being pre-adjudicated and approvals are pending for lack of visa numbers. Nothing unusual. En mass filing is resulting in En mass RFEs.
A denial can happen when RFEs are not responded in time.
From what I have been seeing on forum - all RFEs that people got for i 485 are not something difficult to answer.
If you look at RFEs for h1bs - some are very complicated and these days Attorneys are charging around 3K for responding to RFE with no guarantee
I think it is quite normal that we are getting barrage of RFEs from USCIS. This perhaps is not due to recession or economy at all. It is also not unusual in my opinion. You are simply forgetting the fact that during July-Aug 2007 , so many of us filed 485s together. So its quite natural that when these cases are being processed, we are getting RFEs to re-check for authentications and cases are being pre-adjudicated and approvals are pending for lack of visa numbers. Nothing unusual. En mass filing is resulting in En mass RFEs.
hair Goethe : : Motivational Quotes Posters by semas87. A motivational quote by Goethe to inspire and motivate us.Makes a great inspirational gift for family and
fromnaija
09-26 01:32 PM
Hi All,
My visa will expire (6 yrs completion) in the month of October 2007. What can I do next. Will I get an years extension based on the Green card filing. What is the standard procedure ?
CCC2006
Fiirst, I think you should have started a new thread with your question and not bury it under this discussion. Having said that, to get an extension after the six year H limit, you need to have labor certification application filed at least 365 days prior to your expiry date or alternatively have an immigrant petition approved on your behalf by that date.
My visa will expire (6 yrs completion) in the month of October 2007. What can I do next. Will I get an years extension based on the Green card filing. What is the standard procedure ?
CCC2006
Fiirst, I think you should have started a new thread with your question and not bury it under this discussion. Having said that, to get an extension after the six year H limit, you need to have labor certification application filed at least 365 days prior to your expiry date or alternatively have an immigrant petition approved on your behalf by that date.
more...
tnite
08-06 04:06 PM
bump
hot funny motivational quotes.
kumar1
07-29 10:37 AM
d
more...
house failure poster posters
zigma
04-06 07:21 AM
With this bill, if the thought is that about half of the illegals (<5yrs) will have to leave the country and return, and that too without any guarantees, they are not going to do it unless the consequences are drastic. Some, even then may decide that staying illegally is a better option than going back.
IMHO, this bill amounts to saying,
1. Let's legalize some of the illegals
2. Let's push the the rest of the problem away for another 10-12 years
3. A compromise
But the question that arises is that, what prevents people who have been here legally (>5yrs) from applying for GC thorugh this method?
IMHO, this bill amounts to saying,
1. Let's legalize some of the illegals
2. Let's push the the rest of the problem away for another 10-12 years
3. A compromise
But the question that arises is that, what prevents people who have been here legally (>5yrs) from applying for GC thorugh this method?
tattoo funny motivational pictures.
gbof
04-27 09:50 AM
Thanks vhd999,
That is what I am talking about. Even after confirming with cust serv reps, the check-in counters behave differently. I will also carry a printout of the website that says 2 bags for the worldwide option.
desigirl,
There is no problem at India's end..we all know how to handle that. Also, it does matter if there are 2 bags or 1 from here. If I have 3 extra bags, then I end up paying more...rather than assuming that they will be checked in free. You pack your luggage accordingly assuming x no of bags are involved. Also, I will make sure my wife travels comfortably, that's why i am asking these questions in the first place.
I had 2-bags but I guess lot more heavier than allowed-- They put the 'excess baggage' stickers. But they did not advise or demand money at check-in (I was ready to part with extra stuff, if advised). I thought they may demand money.......at check out --but no body demanded. I guess they were quite liberal atleast in my case....may be an exception
That is what I am talking about. Even after confirming with cust serv reps, the check-in counters behave differently. I will also carry a printout of the website that says 2 bags for the worldwide option.
desigirl,
There is no problem at India's end..we all know how to handle that. Also, it does matter if there are 2 bags or 1 from here. If I have 3 extra bags, then I end up paying more...rather than assuming that they will be checked in free. You pack your luggage accordingly assuming x no of bags are involved. Also, I will make sure my wife travels comfortably, that's why i am asking these questions in the first place.
I had 2-bags but I guess lot more heavier than allowed-- They put the 'excess baggage' stickers. But they did not advise or demand money at check-in (I was ready to part with extra stuff, if advised). I thought they may demand money.......at check out --but no body demanded. I guess they were quite liberal atleast in my case....may be an exception
more...
pictures Motivational Posters
ashkam
11-16 02:08 PM
As has been discussed and responded to a million times on this forum, the answer to this question is, when you enter on an AP, your immigrant status changes to parolee, but your H1B continues to be valid as a work authorization document and you can still use it to work for the same employer.
dresses Some Motivational Quotes
qualified_trash
11-15 09:08 AM
I head that Backlog centers is allowing people to convert their applications from TR to RIR. Can I know whats the process. I can ask my lawyer to do that
I am sorry but you seem to be confused. Your post says that the RIR provision in your app was rejected and your labor app has been put in the TR queue (traditional recruitment). now you are asking if you can convert to RIR again??
how will they let you convert when they specifically rejected the RIR?? I suggest you speak with a lawyer, and, understand this process completely before taking any further steps.
I am sorry but you seem to be confused. Your post says that the RIR provision in your app was rejected and your labor app has been put in the TR queue (traditional recruitment). now you are asking if you can convert to RIR again??
how will they let you convert when they specifically rejected the RIR?? I suggest you speak with a lawyer, and, understand this process completely before taking any further steps.
more...
makeup Motivational Posters
eb3_nepa
07-20 09:01 PM
Can you please provide me a bit more insight for this topic or please point me where i can get some more details, if possible.
I'm on H1B 8th year, stuck with EB3 Retro with a priority date of Nov/03. My wife has a PhD in Molecular Biology, one of the hot subjects all across the globe.
I'll truly appreciate
You can consult any lawyer. To the best of my knowledge you dont need employer sponsorship if ur a PhD although i could be wrong.
I'm on H1B 8th year, stuck with EB3 Retro with a priority date of Nov/03. My wife has a PhD in Molecular Biology, one of the hot subjects all across the globe.
I'll truly appreciate
You can consult any lawyer. To the best of my knowledge you dont need employer sponsorship if ur a PhD although i could be wrong.
girlfriend funny motivational quotes.
ps57002
09-09 02:37 PM
Please advise.
Received the following RFE: a photocopy of birth certificate issued by local registrar if person was born in a city or a photocopy of birth certificate issued by additional district's registrar's office if person was born in village: If person has completed 10th grade or above, please also submit a photocopy of their education board certificate.
Docs I have: an attested true copy (notarized) of my birth certificate in Hindi. Not very legible. Has a first name for me which is not name I go by. I think it was used to just complete birth certificate as actual name was set based on time/date of birth etc. Affadavits from parents and an uncle stating my parents name and DOB. I also have another version of these where they state that I was known by a nickname (as on my birth certificate) as a child. I also have a notarized letter from Indian consulate stating that according to my passports, I was born to x and y parents with a DOB of such and such. As for education certificates, I completed 10th in india, then transfered to USA and had to redo it here (yes i've been in usa for ages). I don't have any paperwork related to my 10th in India. i do have letters of transfer from completeing 8th grade in a different country to be used in India which states parents name and DOB.
I don't remember what was submitted during July 07 fiasco regarding this. I think unfortunately my birth certificate was submitted with letters from consulate and uncle (one where it states i was known by a different nickname). Unfortunately my lawyer doesn't seem to have checked everything well before submitting.
What should I do now? Please advise what i can submit to correct this?
*Since it seems BC was submitted, getting a letter to it's nonavailability is out of question (and very hard to get since I have a BC). so should i get whatever translation I can of the letter (very illegible) and have that letter be notarized?
*Once i get that translation, it will show BC has different name? Should i then submit affadavits from parents regarding name, DOB, place of birth, with note that as a child I was known by nickname that is on my BC? The letters I have are from 2007, can I continue to use these affadavits? I can re-add consulate's letter that according to passports, my parents are such and such etc.
*As for education certificate? Should I get transcript from H.S. showing I did my 10th here and submit the letter of transfer after my 8th grade that shows info on my parents and DOB. or does it have to be something after 10th and higher? In USA docs usually don't state parent information.
Please help as I'm very stressed about this....
Thanks.
Received the following RFE: a photocopy of birth certificate issued by local registrar if person was born in a city or a photocopy of birth certificate issued by additional district's registrar's office if person was born in village: If person has completed 10th grade or above, please also submit a photocopy of their education board certificate.
Docs I have: an attested true copy (notarized) of my birth certificate in Hindi. Not very legible. Has a first name for me which is not name I go by. I think it was used to just complete birth certificate as actual name was set based on time/date of birth etc. Affadavits from parents and an uncle stating my parents name and DOB. I also have another version of these where they state that I was known by a nickname (as on my birth certificate) as a child. I also have a notarized letter from Indian consulate stating that according to my passports, I was born to x and y parents with a DOB of such and such. As for education certificates, I completed 10th in india, then transfered to USA and had to redo it here (yes i've been in usa for ages). I don't have any paperwork related to my 10th in India. i do have letters of transfer from completeing 8th grade in a different country to be used in India which states parents name and DOB.
I don't remember what was submitted during July 07 fiasco regarding this. I think unfortunately my birth certificate was submitted with letters from consulate and uncle (one where it states i was known by a different nickname). Unfortunately my lawyer doesn't seem to have checked everything well before submitting.
What should I do now? Please advise what i can submit to correct this?
*Since it seems BC was submitted, getting a letter to it's nonavailability is out of question (and very hard to get since I have a BC). so should i get whatever translation I can of the letter (very illegible) and have that letter be notarized?
*Once i get that translation, it will show BC has different name? Should i then submit affadavits from parents regarding name, DOB, place of birth, with note that as a child I was known by nickname that is on my BC? The letters I have are from 2007, can I continue to use these affadavits? I can re-add consulate's letter that according to passports, my parents are such and such etc.
*As for education certificate? Should I get transcript from H.S. showing I did my 10th here and submit the letter of transfer after my 8th grade that shows info on my parents and DOB. or does it have to be something after 10th and higher? In USA docs usually don't state parent information.
Please help as I'm very stressed about this....
Thanks.
hairstyles Motivational Quotes
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.
neelu
02-09 11:27 PM
Hi
My status has changed recently from H4 to H1. I haven't got my H1 visa stamped in passport. I need to travel to India due to family emergency.
1. Can I get an emergency appointment?
2. Would I have any problem related to transit visa if travelling via Amsterdam or Frankfurt?
3. How long does it take to recieve the passport after stamping?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
TEKNMEK
1. You should be able to get an emergency appointment. Check out the following links:
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/appointments2.html
https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/Home.aspx
2. My mother recently flew via Frankfurt. She did not require a transit VISA.
3. If you get VISA stamped in India, it usually is given to you the same evening (at least in Chennai).
Hope this helps. Wish you good Luck!
My status has changed recently from H4 to H1. I haven't got my H1 visa stamped in passport. I need to travel to India due to family emergency.
1. Can I get an emergency appointment?
2. Would I have any problem related to transit visa if travelling via Amsterdam or Frankfurt?
3. How long does it take to recieve the passport after stamping?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
TEKNMEK
1. You should be able to get an emergency appointment. Check out the following links:
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/appointments2.html
https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/Home.aspx
2. My mother recently flew via Frankfurt. She did not require a transit VISA.
3. If you get VISA stamped in India, it usually is given to you the same evening (at least in Chennai).
Hope this helps. Wish you good Luck!
bhasky25
10-11 02:31 PM
I do not wish to refile my GC.. I just wanted to know if I can get my HB1 renewed even after the underlying 140 is revoked...