REEF�
06-06 05:21 PM
Nice work vd...lol I only see one path...
paragpujara
10-25 04:37 PM
Do not believe on online status. Couple of my frds got their EAD and still online status is " Case Received and Pending". Looks like they are not updating the status on regular basis.
Munna Bhai
01-09 01:44 PM
NSC is processing 140's filed on or before Apr 6,2007 - Once the processing dates shows your filing date, on 31st day, you can ask your employer to open a service request. NSC respond to your SR within 45 days. Hope this helps.
any more inputs??
any more inputs??
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
more...
Happyday
08-06 01:47 PM
Bang on
jthomas
06-11 01:49 PM
I assume you mean "Be prepared for some grilling ....".
I don't see why US would care if I am returning back in a week with a valid GC. I can imagine canadians asking me if I have abandoned my canadian PR status or not.
When i came back from canada the US POE made me wait for 4 hours and asked me questions, whether i am thinking to abandon my US green card application and move to canada etc.. They will check you baggage and later after 2 hours of sincere answers they will let you in. Don't worry too much about it.
In your case you have a US GC in hand i don't know about those issues
I don't see why US would care if I am returning back in a week with a valid GC. I can imagine canadians asking me if I have abandoned my canadian PR status or not.
When i came back from canada the US POE made me wait for 4 hours and asked me questions, whether i am thinking to abandon my US green card application and move to canada etc.. They will check you baggage and later after 2 hours of sincere answers they will let you in. Don't worry too much about it.
In your case you have a US GC in hand i don't know about those issues
more...
vcurichmond
08-21 12:35 PM
JULY 19th Filer Checks got encashed.
My I-485 checks got encashed on August 20, 2007. I filed at NSC.
VCURich
My I-485 checks got encashed on August 20, 2007. I filed at NSC.
VCURich
Milind123
08-16 06:05 AM
I would like to share my experience with the immigration officer in India.
Way back in 2000 when I landed in India, the IE went thru my passport and asked me if I had overstayed my stay in US. (US Visa had expired for over a year my current H1 papers were in my travel bag which had to be checked in because the European Lufthansa staff thought the bag was too big to be used as a carry in). Anyways, I did not have the papers to show and I requested the office to let me go to the baggage claim area to retrieve my papers. I don't know why he was suspicious and he said and I paraphrase "I am going to impound your passport, If I don't see those papers as you have overstayed your visa".
to be continued.....
Way back in 2000 when I landed in India, the IE went thru my passport and asked me if I had overstayed my stay in US. (US Visa had expired for over a year my current H1 papers were in my travel bag which had to be checked in because the European Lufthansa staff thought the bag was too big to be used as a carry in). Anyways, I did not have the papers to show and I requested the office to let me go to the baggage claim area to retrieve my papers. I don't know why he was suspicious and he said and I paraphrase "I am going to impound your passport, If I don't see those papers as you have overstayed your visa".
to be continued.....
more...
nixstor
02-23 02:33 PM
What if I-140 is approved , and the primary applicant (H1) is waiting for the PD to be current, and the dependent wants to go to school. Will this have any impact on the GC process?
Shirish,
I guess you are in VA. My wife is in School at Mason. She is on H-4 as well. Send me an email or call me if you need more info regarding this. I can give you more info if this is with regards to Mason.
Shirish,
I guess you are in VA. My wife is in School at Mason. She is on H-4 as well. Send me an email or call me if you need more info regarding this. I can give you more info if this is with regards to Mason.
kishdam
03-17 10:18 AM
I was reading at immigration-law.com that a new bill SUSTAIN act is introduced by Lamar Smith in the house and is referred to the judiciary committee. This bill seems proposing the increase of H1B numbers from 65k to 195k. Does this bill have any EB related measures? This bill may be unlikely to get voted anytime soon but if it has some EB measures at least we get some exposure.
more...
aarzoo
02-02 06:18 PM
Thanks clockwork
@fromnaija:
Based on the regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that became effective July 16, 2007, a labor certification approved will expire after 180 days, unless an I-140 petition has been filed in the case.
The new rule provides a 180day validity period for approved labor certifications. All permanent labor certifications approved on or after the effective date of July 16, 2007, will expire 180 calendar days after certification, whether the original application was filed under the PERM or prePERM regulations, unless the employer uses the approved labor certification prior to expiration in support of an I140 petition with USCIS. Likewise, all labor certifications approved prior to July 16, 2007 will expire in 180 calendar days, unless filed in support of an I140 petition with USCIS prior to the expiration date. Therefore, all currently approved labor certification applications must be filed in support of an I140 petition by January 11, 2008.
If the above explaination is correct, I should be able to use the same labor.
@fromnaija:
Based on the regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that became effective July 16, 2007, a labor certification approved will expire after 180 days, unless an I-140 petition has been filed in the case.
The new rule provides a 180day validity period for approved labor certifications. All permanent labor certifications approved on or after the effective date of July 16, 2007, will expire 180 calendar days after certification, whether the original application was filed under the PERM or prePERM regulations, unless the employer uses the approved labor certification prior to expiration in support of an I140 petition with USCIS. Likewise, all labor certifications approved prior to July 16, 2007 will expire in 180 calendar days, unless filed in support of an I140 petition with USCIS prior to the expiration date. Therefore, all currently approved labor certification applications must be filed in support of an I140 petition by January 11, 2008.
If the above explaination is correct, I should be able to use the same labor.
pcs
05-31 11:56 AM
bump
more...
Circus123
01-09 03:49 PM
YEs sure I think 6 may go through instead of 5 this time.
lunar
07-21 11:43 AM
I Agree it is better not to take risk. But why is this an issue after 3 years of working from home. Next question is If I ask my lawyer not to renew my H1B and only work on EAD does DOL have an issue ? is that risk worth taking. Moving my family entirely for this reason is not a good option.
more...
indianabacklog
10-25 02:29 PM
Ok, count on me and will be there at 11:00 am.
See you Saturday, please see the previous reply to USIRIT as I suggest we meet outside.
See you Saturday, please see the previous reply to USIRIT as I suggest we meet outside.
srinivas_o
01-08 12:37 PM
Thanks a lot to everybody whoever answered my questions.
more...
learning01
05-24 05:27 PM
From Bllomberg Update on CIR in Senate:
................
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove today spoke for the second time in two weeks at a private meeting of House Republicans to seek a compromise between the Senate and the House.
Rove, during his appearance, heard complaints from representatives who oppose the Senate's immigration proposal, according to lawmakers who attended.
``Even I, optimistic as I am about a lot of things around here, see an immigration bill -- with so few calendar days left - - hard to reconcile,'' said Representative Mark Foley, a Florida Republican who attended the meeting.
Majority
Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, said Hastert won't move a final compromise measure to the House floor unless it is supported by a majority of the House's 231 Republicans -- not a majority of all House members.
``The speaker believes in passing an immigration bill with a majority of the majority,'' Bonjean said.
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters that passage of a final measure may be helpful in fall elections in which Republicans have ``the wind in our face'' as they work to keep control of the House.
LINK (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aGou1DNa_4Ic&refer=top_world_news) at Bloomber.com
Call me paranoid...but I am wondering the exact same thing that how come Tancredo, et.al. are not making any noises...if you remember last time these congressmen were making a lot of noise and the bill went nowhere, now in hindsight, I think internally they knew that the bill will not pass the senate at that time and were making the most of it. Similarly, the silence is ominous because it means they probably have some surprises lined up at the conference. BTW, do we know who will be on the conference from both the Senate as well as the house? Also, are the conference proceedings publicised?
................
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove today spoke for the second time in two weeks at a private meeting of House Republicans to seek a compromise between the Senate and the House.
Rove, during his appearance, heard complaints from representatives who oppose the Senate's immigration proposal, according to lawmakers who attended.
``Even I, optimistic as I am about a lot of things around here, see an immigration bill -- with so few calendar days left - - hard to reconcile,'' said Representative Mark Foley, a Florida Republican who attended the meeting.
Majority
Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, said Hastert won't move a final compromise measure to the House floor unless it is supported by a majority of the House's 231 Republicans -- not a majority of all House members.
``The speaker believes in passing an immigration bill with a majority of the majority,'' Bonjean said.
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters that passage of a final measure may be helpful in fall elections in which Republicans have ``the wind in our face'' as they work to keep control of the House.
LINK (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aGou1DNa_4Ic&refer=top_world_news) at Bloomber.com
Call me paranoid...but I am wondering the exact same thing that how come Tancredo, et.al. are not making any noises...if you remember last time these congressmen were making a lot of noise and the bill went nowhere, now in hindsight, I think internally they knew that the bill will not pass the senate at that time and were making the most of it. Similarly, the silence is ominous because it means they probably have some surprises lined up at the conference. BTW, do we know who will be on the conference from both the Senate as well as the house? Also, are the conference proceedings publicised?
mallikonnet
07-06 10:41 AM
Jayant,
Thanks. I will have to return to China because my husband is chinese. If he can not stay here, he would like to go back there and so do I.
Once again thanks for the advice. Let me rephrase my question:
(a) At this point can I file for PERM processing (five months left on H1)?
(b) Case I : If labour does not get cleared within next five months,can I apply for H1 B extension?
(c) Case II : If labour gets cleared within next five months, can I apply for H1B extension?
At this point, I am loooking for extension of one year. Is there any way I can do this?
Thanks a lot again,
Savitri Bhave
hi you waited too long to file PERM. To apply for PERM lawyer need considerable time for advertising and other stuff. I would recommend to meet a lawyer since 5 months is too short for both advertising and filing. if your PERM pending more than 365 days then you will be able to extend H1B visa. Even if you were able to file PERM there is no premium I-140 right now
Another option is to go back to china for 1 year and then coming back again on another 6 year H1B visa term(3 years at a time)
best thing is to consult your company lawyer
goodluck
Thanks. I will have to return to China because my husband is chinese. If he can not stay here, he would like to go back there and so do I.
Once again thanks for the advice. Let me rephrase my question:
(a) At this point can I file for PERM processing (five months left on H1)?
(b) Case I : If labour does not get cleared within next five months,can I apply for H1 B extension?
(c) Case II : If labour gets cleared within next five months, can I apply for H1B extension?
At this point, I am loooking for extension of one year. Is there any way I can do this?
Thanks a lot again,
Savitri Bhave
hi you waited too long to file PERM. To apply for PERM lawyer need considerable time for advertising and other stuff. I would recommend to meet a lawyer since 5 months is too short for both advertising and filing. if your PERM pending more than 365 days then you will be able to extend H1B visa. Even if you were able to file PERM there is no premium I-140 right now
Another option is to go back to china for 1 year and then coming back again on another 6 year H1B visa term(3 years at a time)
best thing is to consult your company lawyer
goodluck
dtekkedil
07-05 02:21 PM
by now everybody might have heard stories about how USCIS pulled staff and worked overtime and weekends to utilize the 60k visas in one month to prevent the july 485 filings.
What I am wondering is why did they do it. One obvious reason is the incresed fee comming into effect from July 30 2007. In addition to it what are the other reasons.
Is there any agenda within USCIS to prevent people from getting EAD and ac21 benefits?
Is USCIS filled with anti immgrant mentality who have takem upon themselves to make our lives difficult?
My guess is that this was done by the Bush Govt! So that there would be an outcry and he can get his CIR bill back into the senate. I hope it works!
What I am wondering is why did they do it. One obvious reason is the incresed fee comming into effect from July 30 2007. In addition to it what are the other reasons.
Is there any agenda within USCIS to prevent people from getting EAD and ac21 benefits?
Is USCIS filled with anti immgrant mentality who have takem upon themselves to make our lives difficult?
My guess is that this was done by the Bush Govt! So that there would be an outcry and he can get his CIR bill back into the senate. I hope it works!
Rinsha
03-19 08:55 AM
Good observation, although I totally support this clause to oppose automatic citizenship.
Maybe you are right, but in the meantime there are hundreds of thousands of children which are U.S. Citizen and their parents are struggling to give them a normal life in this country.
They can't just see half of the problem: if they deny automatic citizenship, at the same time they should grant the right to have the same opportunities of all other citizens for those who are citizen with immigrant parents: both parent should be entitled to work and have complete freedom of changing employer, start a business, etc.
Maybe you are right, but in the meantime there are hundreds of thousands of children which are U.S. Citizen and their parents are struggling to give them a normal life in this country.
They can't just see half of the problem: if they deny automatic citizenship, at the same time they should grant the right to have the same opportunities of all other citizens for those who are citizen with immigrant parents: both parent should be entitled to work and have complete freedom of changing employer, start a business, etc.
cox
June 18th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Did you see my comment on this shot in the gallery, because I said the same exact thing "ask and you shall receive". Anyway, like I said there, great shot, Anders would be proud. ;)
Great minds and all that ;) Yeah, Anders & Omar keep me working to improve my wildlife and landscapes. You, Bob, Rob, Gary and others too numerous to list here remind me thru pictures that I should shoot other things occasionally too. And Queen Josephine has finally shamed me into buying Photoshop CS2 (with the intent of learning how to use it). 'Course, now I only have to figure out how to open this box...:D
Great minds and all that ;) Yeah, Anders & Omar keep me working to improve my wildlife and landscapes. You, Bob, Rob, Gary and others too numerous to list here remind me thru pictures that I should shoot other things occasionally too. And Queen Josephine has finally shamed me into buying Photoshop CS2 (with the intent of learning how to use it). 'Course, now I only have to figure out how to open this box...:D
No comments:
Post a Comment