bradley emmanuel

With my limited knowledge on this topic -- Unemployment is not considered a social burden. It is funded by all employers. At no time, govt funds this pool with tax payer's money so I would not call it a social burden. Personally, if unemployment office is ready to give me a check, I would collect it !

Well, good lawyer or bad lawyer, everyone here knows, that they never reveal the true story of what and where the company messed up.
I want to just find out that, if I transfer to a new company with 14 months left on that 6 year limit, do I have enough time to transfer H1, file brand new Perm, file a brand new I 140 , get approved, and get three year extention instead of on year? a small window for timing here. Should I stick with the same company?
Any input is appreciated.
thanks.....


Yes. You definitely have time to do all that. PERM should take max 4 months total time, I-140 via premium processing will not take more than 2 weeks. So, you need not worry about the timeline at all.

If you want to move to a new employer go for it.

Once they're through with July 2 or 3 filers, July 17th filers onwards will be next because there are just a handful who filed on July 4 to July 16. This news makes sense to me.

It seems Texas is moving fast now and so is Nebraska. We can see a big leap in the Receipting Up-date this coming Friday. Whew...mine is 2 receipting up-date away and got no privilege to see if checks got encashed because atty. paid the fees.

Well, are you sure I would need to work for this "future employer" for 6 months?

AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.

Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?

With LC, I-140 and I-485 process, intentions of employee/employer relationship are expected to be bonafide, otherwise it would be fraud. Although a lot of people mention here, and some attorneys suggest, to work for 6 months for the sponsoring employer, there doesn't appear to be any law on that. Circumstances can change any time (AC21 supports that). Therefore, six month, or whatever period you may want to fix, is merely to strength the case that the sponsorship was bonafide. AC21 guidelines are quite lenient in that matter.

Bottomline is whatever happened, or you can provide, to support that there was no fraudulent intent, you are fine. If situation is not clear, and someone decides to contend, courts may come into picture.

Some people mention that six-month working could haunt you at citizenship time, but I doubt that. USCIS have a lot of other things to look at. If you have been a good citizen until then you should be fine.

I'm aware of the fact the SKIL Bill has been introduced both in the House and the Senate but it has been coupled with the CIR in the Senate.

If the CIR dies or is pushed out till 2009, what are the chances of SKIL bill being taken up for discussion?

If you look at the priority dates , they are moving along quite smoothly for rest of the world except India.

This scenario concerns me.

When people say the immigration system is broken they mean illegal immigrants. Only a few who understand and know the immigration system closely know that its broken with respect to legal immigrants also.

IV needs to compile all your replies. Please send them ASAP.

this window of opportunity to file 485 till August 17th will provide some interim benefits to most of us but we are destined to see long long wait before 485 approval. So I suggest we keep doing our efforts to get achieve other goals like recapture of unused visa number and things of that nature. We need a course of action to raise our voice which could include interaction with congresswoman, rally, letters from Hitech industry leaders and other things of this nature. I am hoping Core will come up with a plan soon.

Annual Report of the Visa Office for 2010 has been released here...

Report of the Visa Office 2010 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/statistics_5240.html)

Table V Part 2

India Received

EB1 6741
EB2 19961
EB3 3036

ROW EB2 Received 19261 (Total EB2 Minus India China Mexico and Philippines)

Other Info
EB1 received a total of 41026 which means there was no spillover from EB1.

It seems they want to make some progress before updating the dates :rolleyes:

Some in this situation are planning to do the full time MBA from the IIMs / ISB under NRI quota
I am not sure how useful doing an MBA from an Indian school would be if one is planning to get back to the U.S. (or the western world in general) I did mine from IIM Ahmedabad, and find it pretty much worthless here.

Reid gambled in calling for a cloture. The reason it will fail is that they need 60 votes for cloture. Specter and John McCain would have supported cloture and passed their OWN bill if not for Durbin and Reid doing in your face type of stuff and putting off a lot of republicans.

Now, if the cloture fails everyone is assuming that the Republicans can pass by a simple majority the new compromise.

Well did anyone think of this - if the republicans are spiteful today after defeating cloture (which John McCain too said he will vote to do) then the democrats will not vote for cloture tomorrow!!

Result: No legislation.

The only way to overcome this is to flood democratic senators lines early tomorrow and after cloture today to ask them to support the "compromise" from republicans.

sorry to hear. your education (degree and specilization) must meet the education requirement for the job as mentioned in the labor certification. In general, MS and MBA is not related, unless your lc states that any master degree acceptable for your job. it is a mistake of your lawyer.

Usually I didn't recomond any one. But for cheaper option this is the man.
If your case is complicated, go with Murthy, Rajiv Khanna, Ron Gotcher etc...

He is the cheapest and good attorney known.
H1B charge is $650 (renew) $750 for new, no charge for filing H4. GC process PERM , I-140, I-485 all for only $2000. Citizenship application $250.
No charge for any RFE. He will respond in detail. I don't know about AC21. May be $250.
HIGHLY RECOMENDED. New York based. Young man in his 30's. Respond emails with an hour.
He is a British guy like one of us came here in the USA as a student F1, H1 and greencard and pass the Bar license to become a lawyer.
So he have first hand knowledge of all the process. So this make him diffrent from any Immigration lawyers.
Andrew Dutton, Esq., P.C., lawyers in Franklin Square, NY, New York (http://www.immigrationcounselorlaw.com/)

Telephone: 516-308-3670
Fax: 516-308-3669
http://www.immigration-counselor.builderspot.com
immigrationcounselorlaw.com



email.
immigration_counselor@yahoo.com

until today my I485 was 60 days outside the processing times.
Now it is not.
I had previously inquired (service request) what's up, I was told by phone they cannot even process SR because they are more than 60 days behind published dates.

Things that caused Nebraska to move back:

Transfers from Texas Service Center
180 day name check rule
Some categories moving forward in VB, and they had not been doing pre-adjudication.
They are trying to make processing dates reflect reality (and reduce service requests)

The only logical thing was to move the processing date back, if only to reduce the service requests coming in.

I don't know if they still have to process my SR, it was raised when 60 days behind, but now it is only about 34 days behind.

This is some sign of some LIMITED attempt to process as FIFO for receipt date.

hi there! but what if mine's rcpt date is july 21? the last processing time was July 30, 2007??? my friend who has a rcpt date of July 19 got her gc already. Do you think they already finished processing the cases from July 20-July 30?? cause its been a month and they should finish it before they moved back because it's just 10 freakin days! right? last january 2008 they processed from april 2007-June 19 (my friend had hers already).. im so upset

why are you worried about your labor when your status shows that you have filed your 140?

This is a EB3 - General Poll across all countries

I have a question about my Mother in laws' visit to the USA.She has a 10 year multi entry tourist visa (B1, validity from 2005 to 2015) to the US and she has visited the US 3 times so far and the dates are as follows


February 18, 2006 to August 16, 2006 (visited her sons family in East)
July 8, 2007 to January 7, 2008 (stayed with us)
August 2, 2008 to February 01, 2009 (stayed with us)


She is currently on her 3rd visit to the USA and is living with us. Her departure date is January 2009. On her visit this time, at the port of entry (LAX) she was asked by the Immigration officer if she was visiting USA so often because of her grand child. She said yes and the immigration officer stamped her a 6 month stay and also told her to be careful of future visits so often to the United States. My mother in law is a widow and both her children live in the US as permanent residents.



Our baby recently had a health issue and was hospitalized. But due to all this with my wife and I both working, my wife feels it would be good if we could get my mother in law an extension of stay (perhaps 3months plus beyond January 2009)till my wife can complete her internship (which is time bound). My mother in laws� son lives in the east coast and he is a permanent resident in the USA.

I do not want to jeopardize her ability to visit the US in future due to an extension. So the question are:



Will a request for extension be approved by USCIS?
Will this jeopardize her chances of coming to the US in future?
IF she gets an extension this time, what will be the cooling off period for her to come to the US next time
How long does it take for USCIS to process a request for extension and what is the processing fee

Your response is greatly appreciated.

We should empahsise how the amnesty offer can set precedence for future influx of people and how US would end up as Latino country, if immigration is not controlled. This can be a sure catalyst for SJ Mercury times as they are trying to find ammunition to counter the Illegal protests

Sundar99, I do agree with some of your sentiments about promoting the cause of legal immigrants but lets not pick battles that will only be turned against IV. IV has many external detractors and the more IV gains exposure in the media, more enemies will continue to emerge. Do you suppose organizations such as FAIR, NumbersUSA and others really distinguish between IV and the undocumented movement ? Visit this blog by one of the FAIR executives : www.steinreport.com (http://www.steinreport.com) and you will understand that legal and illegal immigrants to such organizations are one and the same thing as far as they are concerned and they could care less regardless of the glaring facts. One of the concerns that you highlight is that of increased backlogs in the face of amnesty, it has been reiterated by several senators all in agreement that anyone coming through amnesty will go to the back of the line and not before legal immigrants.


We should empahsise how the amnesty offer can set precedence for future influx of people and how US would end up as Latino country, if immigration is not controlled.

Do you really want to pick a fight with the more than 43 million Americans of Hispanic origin ? This is the very same argument that bloggers are using against IV following the WP article about an invasion by persons of Chinese and Indian origin, arguments made totally out of context. Why should we emulate such organizations and stoop to their level. Lets pick our battles wisely and only those we have a chance of winning.

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.

I got my H1B visa inside the US and when I went to the consulate, the lady refused to stamp my visa. I had to go to the passport office and get an "observation" that my name should be read as
First Name : "FirstName"
Last Name : "LastName"

hello every1,

I was wondering how many of you are here who had applied their labor with MS + 0 years of experience for EB2 category..

Could you please shed some light on your profile and current standing in GC process ??

Thank youu....

My current position was advertised as MS with 0 years experience even though I had MS + 4 years experience. However I applied in old labor system (pre-PERM).