amsgc
06-20 12:57 AM
my knowledge is also limited...
but from my J1 days this is what i understood:
J1 is NOT a dual intent visa.
All J1 have some requirements to fulfill before applying for GC
For physicians it is a 2 yr Home requirement OR underserved area practice
For researchers etc a No objection is needed from the home country for a waiver
Therefore you cannot file for adjustment of status while still on a J1 unless you have the relevant waiver. It will certainly be rejected.
Physicians who get a waiver move to an H1 during their 3 year practice requirement. The NIW is a special case here, 485 filing is permitted but no approval till 5 years are over.
hope that's helpful.
That helps, Paskal. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Regards
Ams
but from my J1 days this is what i understood:
J1 is NOT a dual intent visa.
All J1 have some requirements to fulfill before applying for GC
For physicians it is a 2 yr Home requirement OR underserved area practice
For researchers etc a No objection is needed from the home country for a waiver
Therefore you cannot file for adjustment of status while still on a J1 unless you have the relevant waiver. It will certainly be rejected.
Physicians who get a waiver move to an H1 during their 3 year practice requirement. The NIW is a special case here, 485 filing is permitted but no approval till 5 years are over.
hope that's helpful.
That helps, Paskal. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Regards
Ams
thesparky007
04-25 07:25 PM
thanks
slowroasted
slowroasted
brb2
04-05 08:24 AM
....If there is so much resistance to the bill in the senate, imagine the resistance that it will receive in the house and the various voting processes that it has to go through.
I think, passage of Frist bill with no 'guest worker' provisions for 'undocumented workers' or a separate bill altogether dedicated to legal immigration provisions are our safest bets.
Any thoughts?
This bill if passed in the senate will NOT go to the house. It will go to the house and senate joint conference committee where a sensible common ground is found. This will save house reps who can say that they voted against amenesty while still having a bill passed.
The danger right now is that Kyle and others who are against amnesty (that is what even I would call it!) are trying to put in amendments that would be the poison-pill that will bring the whole bill down. It is very likely that no bill may pass the senate. If the democrats try to gain the 51% vote to end debate and vote on the existing bill, the only tool with republicans is to use the fillibuster and then the democrats will need 61 votes to overcome it which they don't have.
I think, passage of Frist bill with no 'guest worker' provisions for 'undocumented workers' or a separate bill altogether dedicated to legal immigration provisions are our safest bets.
Any thoughts?
This bill if passed in the senate will NOT go to the house. It will go to the house and senate joint conference committee where a sensible common ground is found. This will save house reps who can say that they voted against amenesty while still having a bill passed.
The danger right now is that Kyle and others who are against amnesty (that is what even I would call it!) are trying to put in amendments that would be the poison-pill that will bring the whole bill down. It is very likely that no bill may pass the senate. If the democrats try to gain the 51% vote to end debate and vote on the existing bill, the only tool with republicans is to use the fillibuster and then the democrats will need 61 votes to overcome it which they don't have.
jscris
July 18th, 2004, 10:43 AM
Nice! I think I like the second better, too.
more...
eb2dec2005
09-26 07:29 AM
I used AP to enter US in June this year.The IO stamp on my I94 and the AP document says 'Paroled unitl Sept 2009'. Should i consider the validity of AP until this date?
However on the actual AP documents under the Parole paragraph mentions the following: 'The bearereeparted the United States temporarily and intends to return to the US to resume processing of the adjustment of status application.Presentation of the original of this document prior to Sept 27 2008 allows a Customs and Border Protection Inspector at a port-of-entry to parole the names bearer...........'
Can you please let me know, what is the validity of the AP incase one is already out of country and is planning to return to US?Would the date on I94 be considered?
However on the actual AP documents under the Parole paragraph mentions the following: 'The bearereeparted the United States temporarily and intends to return to the US to resume processing of the adjustment of status application.Presentation of the original of this document prior to Sept 27 2008 allows a Customs and Border Protection Inspector at a port-of-entry to parole the names bearer...........'
Can you please let me know, what is the validity of the AP incase one is already out of country and is planning to return to US?Would the date on I94 be considered?
yabayaba
08-19 11:28 AM
Hi,
I belong to Virginia. But Virginia office does not have the dates available for next 2 months. Can I visit to the neighbouring Maryland state USCIS local office for Information. Is it legal and valid to go to Other local office for information?
Thanks,
Raj
Yes...You could....
I belong to Virginia. But Virginia office does not have the dates available for next 2 months. Can I visit to the neighbouring Maryland state USCIS local office for Information. Is it legal and valid to go to Other local office for information?
Thanks,
Raj
Yes...You could....
more...
Blog Feeds
01-09 02:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGtGg2SWMOeXM4AXKV0VEhQvv5IztJBvU9s63aapAwNyVGEprQ5BmkCXDwXiaSWyg_W2RtbFeDovyR1n1k54xP0MMLh1_m8GZOQ_99vO5b2z4pUVqByZ9Ue2VkApnaWXZtEQqL_erqS1g/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGtGg2SWMOeXM4AXKV0VEhQvv5IztJBvU9s63aapAwNyVGEprQ5BmkCXDwXiaSWyg_W2RtbFeDovyR1n1k54xP0MMLh1_m8GZOQ_99vO5b2z4pUVqByZ9Ue2VkApnaWXZtEQqL_erqS1g/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGtGg2SWMOeXM4AXKV0VEhQvv5IztJBvU9s63aapAwNyVGEprQ5BmkCXDwXiaSWyg_W2RtbFeDovyR1n1k54xP0MMLh1_m8GZOQ_99vO5b2z4pUVqByZ9Ue2VkApnaWXZtEQqL_erqS1g/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGtGg2SWMOeXM4AXKV0VEhQvv5IztJBvU9s63aapAwNyVGEprQ5BmkCXDwXiaSWyg_W2RtbFeDovyR1n1k54xP0MMLh1_m8GZOQ_99vO5b2z4pUVqByZ9Ue2VkApnaWXZtEQqL_erqS1g/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
ItIsNotFunny
03-04 05:22 PM
Is there anything i can do on H4 visa??
I would say this is the best time to get education. Learn something, as soon as you have work permit, that will pay you back heavily.
I would say this is the best time to get education. Learn something, as soon as you have work permit, that will pay you back heavily.
more...
zoooom
07-17 07:18 PM
my lawyer missed the 2nd july deadline even when he had all the papers. Now i am asking him to meet 30th july deadline he is not responding . what are the papers needed to file I485. Can I file it without lawyers help? He does have my immunization papers
Just a reminder...the deadline is Aug 17 and not july 30
Just a reminder...the deadline is Aug 17 and not july 30
reddy_h
08-02 01:25 PM
I don't think so but check with the issuer. Sometimes they might tell.
more...
glus
05-10 07:23 PM
hello,
Nothing is "forever." If you hire a good attorney, he/she can argue, that you did have immigrant intent in the past, but have abandoned it and will try to get you a visa. However, without a good lawyer, it may be very difficult to persuade a consular officer that you no longer wish to immigrate to the U.S. after entering here. Contact me via PM if you wish and I can get you in touch with attorney who can answer more questions of yours. Thanx.
Nothing is "forever." If you hire a good attorney, he/she can argue, that you did have immigrant intent in the past, but have abandoned it and will try to get you a visa. However, without a good lawyer, it may be very difficult to persuade a consular officer that you no longer wish to immigrate to the U.S. after entering here. Contact me via PM if you wish and I can get you in touch with attorney who can answer more questions of yours. Thanx.
h4hopeful
04-06 04:30 PM
I am new and just discovered this thread, regarding the Talent Bill that if passed, among other benefits will let H-4s work. Anyone knows who is promoting it and who we can to make sure it is considered and debated? Thanks.
more...
sparklinks
04-10 08:34 AM
Thanks buddy !
bmneni
07-17 05:21 AM
Forgot/didn't know about A# mentioned on my I-140 approval and did not mention it on I-485 application/EAD/AP. will it be an issue??
more...
nozerd
03-26 02:30 PM
More than Salary its location which matters.
50K in MS = 60K in TX = 80 K in CA = 90K NYC
50K in MS = 60K in TX = 80 K in CA = 90K NYC
GKBest
10-30 06:24 PM
I may have to use it for work from January as I am invoking AC21. I am confused now whether to re-apply or just use it like as it is.
My attorney informed USCIS about the typo error when they received the AOS receipts , but it looks like EAD Card was ordered before USCIS was notified. My Advance Parole has also mis-spelled Lastname. I have USCIS letter confirming typo error attached to my case. Would this be a sufficient proof that my EAD has a different Lastname which is only a typo error?
Gurus please advise.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=190382&postcount=1
My lawyer advised me to take an infopass to correct the name of my dependent on the EAD card. Instead of "e", they placed "a" and he said that I might as well have the name on the FP notice and I-485 corrected.
My attorney informed USCIS about the typo error when they received the AOS receipts , but it looks like EAD Card was ordered before USCIS was notified. My Advance Parole has also mis-spelled Lastname. I have USCIS letter confirming typo error attached to my case. Would this be a sufficient proof that my EAD has a different Lastname which is only a typo error?
Gurus please advise.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=190382&postcount=1
My lawyer advised me to take an infopass to correct the name of my dependent on the EAD card. Instead of "e", they placed "a" and he said that I might as well have the name on the FP notice and I-485 corrected.
more...
crazymish
03-06 10:54 AM
Then again I presume it would involve paying a fee of $80 for the biometrics too each time you apply online. Could be avoided if we go paper based.
That does raise a small question here, the $1010 fee that we pay does that also exempt us on the biometric fee, so in essence AP/EAD/FP is all exempt irrespecitve the number of times we apply under the new fee structure?
That does raise a small question here, the $1010 fee that we pay does that also exempt us on the biometric fee, so in essence AP/EAD/FP is all exempt irrespecitve the number of times we apply under the new fee structure?
sprash
06-01 06:26 PM
I had an RFE last year and they asked me to submit photos. They claimed I had not sent photos, which is untrue. I had sent them, but they probably lost them.
anurag
06-13 11:27 AM
I have been through a couple of acquisitions. You dont need to do anything with the h1b.
But for travel - Whenever you are travel outside US, keep a newspaper clipping of the acquisition. Also take a letter from your HR stating you have been working for Company B, which was acquired by Company A and that you continue to work with the new organization.
But for travel - Whenever you are travel outside US, keep a newspaper clipping of the acquisition. Also take a letter from your HR stating you have been working for Company B, which was acquired by Company A and that you continue to work with the new organization.
stemcell
07-14 01:43 PM
Paskal/Pappu
Please update us if only the conrad 30 J1 waiver is being extended or if the conrad 30 improvement act is being suggested here?
Please update us if only the conrad 30 J1 waiver is being extended or if the conrad 30 improvement act is being suggested here?
Anders �stberg
October 7th, 2005, 02:14 AM
My experience is that even with the "1/focal length" rule (or maybe it should be "1/(focal length x crop factor)") is a bit optimistic with these long tele shots. Maybe it can work if you have really good technique and a sturdy tripod but I like to use a much shorter shutter time if possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment