glus
02-19 11:38 AM
not really, but close.
i-94 expire 10/01/2007. married 09/12/2007. i-485 received by uscis on 11/26/2007.
Surge:
Your authorized period of stay ended on 10/1. Your marriage does not matter. The only reason you MAY be able to adjust status in your situation is the fact that you married a U.S. citizen. It is VERY risky to leave the United States before your I485 gets approved. Please consult an attorney before doing so. AP does not guarantee re-admittance especially when one was EVER out of status.
i-94 expire 10/01/2007. married 09/12/2007. i-485 received by uscis on 11/26/2007.
Surge:
Your authorized period of stay ended on 10/1. Your marriage does not matter. The only reason you MAY be able to adjust status in your situation is the fact that you married a U.S. citizen. It is VERY risky to leave the United States before your I485 gets approved. Please consult an attorney before doing so. AP does not guarantee re-admittance especially when one was EVER out of status.
wallpaper wallpaper, d Mlg+iccup+
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.
zoozee
07-30 02:10 PM
I too am eager to receive the receipt but since i have signed the G-28 form i guess have to rely on the lawyer of the employer.
Zee
Zee
2011 mlg pro circuit wallpaper,
21stIcon
09-21 10:51 PM
You will get tax deduction for interest you paid to lender. no matter what deduction you get at end of the year you end of loosing 60-70% of interest which would be more than you pay for rent.
more...
nozerd
04-16 12:20 AM
Any additional thoughts / opinions on getting travel insurance ? My uncle and aunt are coming over for 3 months in the summer. My uncle is 65 with typical BP/ Heart problem issues and aunt has no medical problem. Is ICICI Lombardi the best option ?
Any other viewsand recomendations from those who have actually had to use the insurance and submit a claim etc ?
Thanks
Any other viewsand recomendations from those who have actually had to use the insurance and submit a claim etc ?
Thanks
Neocrack
04-21 08:39 AM
You should be fine. My passport was expiring in April and I re-entered US in March. I think as long as your VISA and Passport dates have not expired you should be able to re-enter.
more...
chanduv23
02-24 07:17 AM
this is what i know
since I-140 is approved and I-485 is pending for more than 6 months therefore employer withdrawing I-140 will hv no effect on GC process
u can get copy of I-140 approval by filing FOIA rqst but it takes about 4-5 months
again, this is what i know but i am not a lawyer, pls consult an attorney b4 any action
btw how does ur employer expect that u not go to another company if u r going to lose ur job with him?
Looks like the OP works for a consulting company and his contract seems to be ending. Seems like there are no contract opportunities at this time but there are fulltime opportunities that match his profile.
His employer does not want him to leave the company but at the same time does not want any issues with benching so asked him to work using EAD during his last week.
His employer also threatening to withdraw 140 support if he leaves.
OP - as long as u r having a new job in hand, AC21 works just fine, so don't worry too much.
since I-140 is approved and I-485 is pending for more than 6 months therefore employer withdrawing I-140 will hv no effect on GC process
u can get copy of I-140 approval by filing FOIA rqst but it takes about 4-5 months
again, this is what i know but i am not a lawyer, pls consult an attorney b4 any action
btw how does ur employer expect that u not go to another company if u r going to lose ur job with him?
Looks like the OP works for a consulting company and his contract seems to be ending. Seems like there are no contract opportunities at this time but there are fulltime opportunities that match his profile.
His employer does not want him to leave the company but at the same time does not want any issues with benching so asked him to work using EAD during his last week.
His employer also threatening to withdraw 140 support if he leaves.
OP - as long as u r having a new job in hand, AC21 works just fine, so don't worry too much.
2010 MLG Get Better Fast Wallpaper
kak1978
10-24 10:39 AM
My mother-in-law had a two way ticket but she was not carrying the e-ticket paper for return ticket, and for that they made her wait 2 hours to verify with the airline that she had a return ticket. So it is VERY Important to have a return ticket, if the visa status is B2 visitor.
Someone gave me a red dot for this post. Why?? Now folks think twice before trying to help someone on this forum, you might get a negative reputation.
Someone gave me a red dot for this post. Why?? Now folks think twice before trying to help someone on this forum, you might get a negative reputation.
more...
glus
12-08 10:50 AM
I think AP can also be mailed to a person who is not in the U.S. If that's the case, you could re-apply for AP once your old expires. Please verify with an attorney.
hair lobby energy mlg armors
glamzon
07-27 11:16 AM
Thanks
more...
jonty_11
07-24 12:04 AM
BEtter go with lawyer...$400 is not much and will save u headache later on dur to name mismatches.
hot ackgrounds
senk1s
07-16 11:30 AM
The answer to gcbuddy's question is straight forward - no need to notify uscis
Just to clarify/ confuse:
Maintaining H1-EAD / H4-EAD simultaneously looks like it is subject to atleast 2 interpretations, depending on the attorney.
I've not seen any clear reference to this by USCIS
H1/ H4/ AP (when approved and valid, stamped) all allow to travel/ (re)entry
H1 allows to work only with the sponsoring employer
EAD allows to work for any employer without restriction (C9 classification is a fringe benefit as a result of filing 485)
Just to clarify/ confuse:
Maintaining H1-EAD / H4-EAD simultaneously looks like it is subject to atleast 2 interpretations, depending on the attorney.
I've not seen any clear reference to this by USCIS
H1/ H4/ AP (when approved and valid, stamped) all allow to travel/ (re)entry
H1 allows to work only with the sponsoring employer
EAD allows to work for any employer without restriction (C9 classification is a fringe benefit as a result of filing 485)
more...
house mlg pro circuit diagrammay
Steve Mitchell
March 12th, 2004, 12:29 AM
Thanks for clarifying skip. It would be great to get the Nikon forum more active.
SB-26 will be a problem. You cannot use TTL flash mode with any Nikon digital camera. It would be like going back to an old thyristor auto flash. Only the DX series flashes work with the digitals.
SB-26 will be a problem. You cannot use TTL flash mode with any Nikon digital camera. It would be like going back to an old thyristor auto flash. Only the DX series flashes work with the digitals.
tattoo Emotions on red ackground
gcisadawg
04-07 03:41 PM
jnraajan,
Thanks for your reply! We surely dont want to jeopardize the ability of her to visit us again! We may have to stick to the original expiry date then!
Would taking an Infopass appointment help?
Other Folks,
Pls. let me know if there are other feedback.
rgds,
gcisadawg
Thanks for your reply! We surely dont want to jeopardize the ability of her to visit us again! We may have to stick to the original expiry date then!
Would taking an Infopass appointment help?
Other Folks,
Pls. let me know if there are other feedback.
rgds,
gcisadawg
more...
pictures Wallpapers / mlg house
jliechty
April 3rd, 2005, 08:51 PM
You can do a lot in this instance with a single well-exposed (highlights to the right, but not blown out) RAW file from a low-noise camera (e.g. anything but my D1). ;)
What you must do is to go through the RAW conversion process twice, making two files: one with the highlights placed where you want them (don't worry about the shadows), and another with the shadows brought up to the level that you'd like (the highlights will be blown out in this image). Now, stack the two in one image as two layers, and use a layer mask on the upper image to "paint" where the bottom one should show through.
This is explained in a tutorial (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml) over at the Luminous Landscape. Given that he was using film when he wrote that, he included a bit on aligning the two images, which you won't need to worry about because both of your images came from the same photo. If you have any more questions, I'd be glad to help, or I'm sure one of our other members who's forgotten more about Photoshop than I'll ever know could help you even better. :)
Edit: $#%^, Gary beat me to it with the LL tutorial. Nevertheless, double RAW conversion works well [not quite, but good enough if you can't go back to do it again] with the same method outlined therein.
What you must do is to go through the RAW conversion process twice, making two files: one with the highlights placed where you want them (don't worry about the shadows), and another with the shadows brought up to the level that you'd like (the highlights will be blown out in this image). Now, stack the two in one image as two layers, and use a layer mask on the upper image to "paint" where the bottom one should show through.
This is explained in a tutorial (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml) over at the Luminous Landscape. Given that he was using film when he wrote that, he included a bit on aligning the two images, which you won't need to worry about because both of your images came from the same photo. If you have any more questions, I'd be glad to help, or I'm sure one of our other members who's forgotten more about Photoshop than I'll ever know could help you even better. :)
Edit: $#%^, Gary beat me to it with the LL tutorial. Nevertheless, double RAW conversion works well [not quite, but good enough if you can't go back to do it again] with the same method outlined therein.
dresses ackground check Gsl mlg
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...
makeup Paint ackground color black
Blondygirl
02-21 03:13 PM
thank you everybody for your input! you have certainly helped me narrow down my searching!!!
girlfriend ackgrounds templatesstuff
pointlesswait
03-28 11:51 AM
how on earth do u expect ppl to knwo how USCIS functions..:eek:
wait and watch!
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
wait and watch!
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
hairstyles Mlgrifle shotgun mlg
kishdam
03-25 10:11 AM
This sustain act is total BS. They want to increase H1-B numbers without reforming the EB system. They do not want to increase EB numbers. They do not want to do away with country quotas. They don't have country quotas in H1-B. This just creates more and more backlogs for everyone. I HOPE THIS BILL DOESN'T PASS. The companies and lawmakers just want cheap labor without "paying" for it. Just a bunch of self-serving bigots !
Seems like this bill has some EB provisions as well - like exempting PhD holders from visa numbers. Ofcourse thats too little but something is better than nothing.
Seems like this bill has some EB provisions as well - like exempting PhD holders from visa numbers. Ofcourse thats too little but something is better than nothing.
hebron
08-10 09:55 AM
I am an EB3 applicant with PD of Sep 2004. I have an EAD but I haven't used it yet. I am still on H1-B.
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
rameshk75
04-07 10:20 AM
Ron's answer for "Leavng petitioning employer after the I485 approval?"
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4764
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4764
No comments:
Post a Comment