san3297
11-10 01:52 PM
Anyone came across this scenario...
anil_gc
11-30 12:27 PM
Since your PD is in 2006, It may be a mistake.
This month I have seen many applicatiions with PD - EB2-India Jan-2003 to Jan 2004 are approved.
If you see many other updates like "Card production ordered" "Welcome NEW permanent residents" in the coming days then it may be a real approval
This month I have seen many applicatiions with PD - EB2-India Jan-2003 to Jan 2004 are approved.
If you see many other updates like "Card production ordered" "Welcome NEW permanent residents" in the coming days then it may be a real approval
vxb2004
11-25 01:24 PM
Thank you very much for all your inputs. I hope everything goes well.
radosav
10-04 01:47 PM
I-485 RD July 27 at Texas
I-140 AD May 25, 06 at Texas, LUD on I-140 July 28, 07
all checks (for I-485 & I-765) cashed Oct 3, 07 at California
Both I-485 cases transfered back to Texas on Oct 2, 07
I-765 shows received date as Oct 1, 07 and will stay at California. Does that mean I need to count 11 weeks from that date? And not from the date when packet was received in July?
I-140 AD May 25, 06 at Texas, LUD on I-140 July 28, 07
all checks (for I-485 & I-765) cashed Oct 3, 07 at California
Both I-485 cases transfered back to Texas on Oct 2, 07
I-765 shows received date as Oct 1, 07 and will stay at California. Does that mean I need to count 11 weeks from that date? And not from the date when packet was received in July?
more...
chanduv23
09-14 02:12 PM
Nothing will happen to you
Just follow your heart
Will se you in DC
Just follow your heart
Will se you in DC
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...
nikh
12-21 11:18 AM
walking_dude and Munnabhai,
Its not fair to make such comments on her. Its very unprofessional from ourside to act like that even before a help denied by her. I think IV needs everyones help and input. Anyone including her might be of great help if they are convinced with our cause and willing to help. And, they deserve a respect.
By the way, i am neither a supporter of indian govt nor belong to a minority community.
nikh
Its not fair to make such comments on her. Its very unprofessional from ourside to act like that even before a help denied by her. I think IV needs everyones help and input. Anyone including her might be of great help if they are convinced with our cause and willing to help. And, they deserve a respect.
By the way, i am neither a supporter of indian govt nor belong to a minority community.
nikh
jazzy2
05-25 08:50 AM
Hi
directly spoke with the staff of Sen. larry craig....
directly spoke with the staff of Sen. larry craig....
more...
CaliGC
06-15 02:49 PM
I am sorry I have no answer to your question but I would like to know how you found out the exact dates your names was cleared. This would be useful info for a lot of us here. Appreciate if you could share this with this forum
Well, I got to know in two ways.
1. My case was originally filed with vermont center and I had called and spoke to one of the immigration officer and I came to know it then (around year 2006).
2. Recently I moved my house and there was some correspondence that still went to the old address, I visited the Immigration office in San Jose, California to rectify the address and asked the immigration officer to check it for me.
Hope this helps.
Well, I got to know in two ways.
1. My case was originally filed with vermont center and I had called and spoke to one of the immigration officer and I came to know it then (around year 2006).
2. Recently I moved my house and there was some correspondence that still went to the old address, I visited the Immigration office in San Jose, California to rectify the address and asked the immigration officer to check it for me.
Hope this helps.
gcformeornot
04-08 01:19 PM
recently there has been changes to address where paper filed application will go...
I prefer to file AP application online because no FP involved...
I prefer to file AP application online because no FP involved...
more...
EndlessWait
06-18 04:54 PM
Mr. EndlessWait -
You extended your status, not visa. Please get your basics correct.
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
Visa Number for the last issued visa (does not matter if is expired)
2. Date Visa Issued
Date of Issue for Visa in #1
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
Place of Issue for Visa in #1
Good Luck
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
Is the visa number the red colored number on the visa stamp or something else?
thanks
You extended your status, not visa. Please get your basics correct.
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
Visa Number for the last issued visa (does not matter if is expired)
2. Date Visa Issued
Date of Issue for Visa in #1
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
Place of Issue for Visa in #1
Good Luck
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
Is the visa number the red colored number on the visa stamp or something else?
thanks
balan2008
07-07 04:53 PM
friends,
We are in a process of divorce . Last year I filed employment based 485 with my wife as depended. Now we both have EAD and she is working under EAD. If we divorce while 485 is pending who go out of status? Me or my wife? Is both 485 will be canceled? Or both are safe. If I marry again is it possible to bring my new wife under my filed 485 petition?
Thanks for your help.
balan
I485 Filed on July 2, 2007.
We are in a process of divorce . Last year I filed employment based 485 with my wife as depended. Now we both have EAD and she is working under EAD. If we divorce while 485 is pending who go out of status? Me or my wife? Is both 485 will be canceled? Or both are safe. If I marry again is it possible to bring my new wife under my filed 485 petition?
Thanks for your help.
balan
I485 Filed on July 2, 2007.
more...
go_guy123
09-25 10:53 AM
No worries,
go and check here: The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html)
in the above link go locating the following news line, read and enjoy
""08/14/2009: Will USCIS Discontinue Concurrent I-140/485 Filing Procedure, Replaced by Preregistration and Two-Tier Filing System? ""
Hmmm....more money for USCIS, 2 times filing and double fees.
go and check here: The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html)
in the above link go locating the following news line, read and enjoy
""08/14/2009: Will USCIS Discontinue Concurrent I-140/485 Filing Procedure, Replaced by Preregistration and Two-Tier Filing System? ""
Hmmm....more money for USCIS, 2 times filing and double fees.
rameshvaid
05-27 04:57 PM
I showed my 485 Receipt notice as evidence and renewed my licence. You don't have to always produce EAD (then every 2 year you have to renew the licence).
If your 485 is pending for long, You can contact USCIS over phone and create service request. USCIS will send you a letter saying that your case is pending because of so and so reason. You can take that along with you, if the BMV is asking why your 485 is pending for long.
Pls. reply to my PM, I sent you earlier.
Thanks..
RV
If your 485 is pending for long, You can contact USCIS over phone and create service request. USCIS will send you a letter saying that your case is pending because of so and so reason. You can take that along with you, if the BMV is asking why your 485 is pending for long.
Pls. reply to my PM, I sent you earlier.
Thanks..
RV
more...
Neocrack
04-19 11:31 PM
I had the same situation:
1. On the application form list your parents name as you want it. They will print the new name on the renewal passport. (I was not asked for any additional documents)
2.To add your spouses name on the passport you will have to give a copy of the marriage certificate and your spouses passport as part of the application form (I had applied in person).
1. On the application form list your parents name as you want it. They will print the new name on the renewal passport. (I was not asked for any additional documents)
2.To add your spouses name on the passport you will have to give a copy of the marriage certificate and your spouses passport as part of the application form (I had applied in person).
chintu25
10-31 01:59 PM
Good job guys ...I am back was busy with some office mess that is now cleared . I am all in and active as ever .
more...
Dhundhun
03-17 03:14 PM
Thanks. I'll try SSN based on AOS. If they refuse, I'll get EAD for my wife.
vin13
01-08 11:10 AM
LostInGC,
Why did you use AP if you had a valid H1-b?
Why did you use AP if you had a valid H1-b?
WillIBLucky
12-13 12:58 PM
That was my thought process too. If the immigration systems is corrected then I believe EB3 and EB2 will become current. Then it does not make a difference. Even late 90's the retrogression was there for both Eb2 and Eb3. IN 1999 they opened up for Y2K and then again retrogressed in 2001-2002 I believe. But again after that it was all current till the current retrogression.
Given the gross uncertainity about retrogression and GC, I would not give undue importance to the GC timeline factor. Eventually job / skills are more important than the distant GC.
I was in a similar situation a few months back. I abandoned my GC process with my former employer for a new and much more promising job. I am yet to start the GC process with the new employer. For me JOB was the deciding factor.
My reasoning was simple:
In the current scenario with a broken immigration system if we are to maintain our sanity and move on in our careers he, we have to stop thinking that GC is above everything. Work on it as much as you can, but do not trade it in for good career moves.
Do what you feel is best for you and what you can make peace with. My 2 cents..
Given the gross uncertainity about retrogression and GC, I would not give undue importance to the GC timeline factor. Eventually job / skills are more important than the distant GC.
I was in a similar situation a few months back. I abandoned my GC process with my former employer for a new and much more promising job. I am yet to start the GC process with the new employer. For me JOB was the deciding factor.
My reasoning was simple:
In the current scenario with a broken immigration system if we are to maintain our sanity and move on in our careers he, we have to stop thinking that GC is above everything. Work on it as much as you can, but do not trade it in for good career moves.
Do what you feel is best for you and what you can make peace with. My 2 cents..
Imm_Exploited
07-30 11:00 AM
I am not an expert on this situation, but here is my $0.02 since most of us should have been once on F1 and then moved on to H1 and then to GC:
1. GC is always filed for a future 'permanent employment' opportunity. That doesn't mean that the GC applicant cannot be working for the employer at the time of applying for I-485.
2. As long as the applicant can prove that he/she can start work with the sposoring emplyer as soon as the GC is approved, the F1 status should be fine (if at all the COS is approved by USCIS).
3. I cannot understand the reason for changing to F1 status and pusuing education on full-time basis. Is it for some sheer academic purposes or is it for some kind of a lower fee at school or is it for tax purposes? Does the person asking the question have an existing job with the sponsoring employer?
IMHO, as long as the applicant has the support of the sponsoring emplyer, it should be fine to go back and forth on statuses. My suggestion would be to just keep working on EAD and pursue education on a part-time basis. If the spouse has an EAD, he/she could either work and study on part-time basis or work full-time and go to school part-time. Bottomline, if it was me, I would never even consider changing my status to F1.
Sincerely - IE
1. GC is always filed for a future 'permanent employment' opportunity. That doesn't mean that the GC applicant cannot be working for the employer at the time of applying for I-485.
2. As long as the applicant can prove that he/she can start work with the sposoring emplyer as soon as the GC is approved, the F1 status should be fine (if at all the COS is approved by USCIS).
3. I cannot understand the reason for changing to F1 status and pusuing education on full-time basis. Is it for some sheer academic purposes or is it for some kind of a lower fee at school or is it for tax purposes? Does the person asking the question have an existing job with the sponsoring employer?
IMHO, as long as the applicant has the support of the sponsoring emplyer, it should be fine to go back and forth on statuses. My suggestion would be to just keep working on EAD and pursue education on a part-time basis. If the spouse has an EAD, he/she could either work and study on part-time basis or work full-time and go to school part-time. Bottomline, if it was me, I would never even consider changing my status to F1.
Sincerely - IE
doubt123
06-15 01:46 PM
Hello,
I was once in the same situation for H1 ( moved to a new compan ), where ex-emplyoyer totally denied to give letter.My lawyer suggested to just write a letter to USCIS mentioning that ex-employer is not giving letter and also mention his company name and telephone number, where they can call and check if they wish. If you have paystubs for the said working period attach copies with this letter.
WE did this, and we got our H1 approved and also I-140 got cleared.
Please check with your lawyer before you follow this step as I am not a lawyer.
Hope this helps and All the best...
I was once in the same situation for H1 ( moved to a new compan ), where ex-emplyoyer totally denied to give letter.My lawyer suggested to just write a letter to USCIS mentioning that ex-employer is not giving letter and also mention his company name and telephone number, where they can call and check if they wish. If you have paystubs for the said working period attach copies with this letter.
WE did this, and we got our H1 approved and also I-140 got cleared.
Please check with your lawyer before you follow this step as I am not a lawyer.
Hope this helps and All the best...
