CaliGC
06-14 09:02 PM
Friends,
Like me, many of you have filed I-485 before Sept 2005 and got stuck due to priority dates getting retrogressed. Now that that the PD is current what action should we take to get the cases approved and not get stuck again.
PLEASE POOL IN YOUR INPUTS so that a collective thought will put us in the right direction to get the GC approved before the PD move back.
TIA.
Please see my Signature below for info regarding me.
EB3/VSC/India
PD July 2004
140/EAD/AP/485 file RD:11/05/2004 ND:11/09/2004
EAD1 Approved:11/22/2004
AP1 Approved:11/23/2005
140 Approved:2/1/2005
EAD2 RD: 10/06/05 AD: 10/25/05
AP2 RD: 10/06/05 AD:10/31/05
EAD3 RD 7/7/2006 AD: 7/27/06
FP1 - 03/10/05
FP2 4/25/07
SELF Name Check Cleared!!!: Dec. 2004 & Jan 2006.
SPOUSE Name Check Cleared!!!: Mar. 2006
Like me, many of you have filed I-485 before Sept 2005 and got stuck due to priority dates getting retrogressed. Now that that the PD is current what action should we take to get the cases approved and not get stuck again.
PLEASE POOL IN YOUR INPUTS so that a collective thought will put us in the right direction to get the GC approved before the PD move back.
TIA.
Please see my Signature below for info regarding me.
EB3/VSC/India
PD July 2004
140/EAD/AP/485 file RD:11/05/2004 ND:11/09/2004
EAD1 Approved:11/22/2004
AP1 Approved:11/23/2005
140 Approved:2/1/2005
EAD2 RD: 10/06/05 AD: 10/25/05
AP2 RD: 10/06/05 AD:10/31/05
EAD3 RD 7/7/2006 AD: 7/27/06
FP1 - 03/10/05
FP2 4/25/07
SELF Name Check Cleared!!!: Dec. 2004 & Jan 2006.
SPOUSE Name Check Cleared!!!: Mar. 2006
gchope100
04-13 06:33 PM
Hi!,
Anyone who is done with interview process and their PD became current in April or May Bulletin got any I-485 approvals??
Anyone who is done with interview process and their PD became current in April or May Bulletin got any I-485 approvals??
ck_b2001
09-11 09:03 PM
i am not sure if my lawyer has the receipts. my case was sent on 6.29.2007 and received on july 2nd.
i got my FP notice (for my wife also) yesterday in mail for 9/25 appt.
from the receipt number on FP notice i checked it on USCIS website. it says that they received the 485 app on 30 aug. and the LUD on 485 is 9/3.
sent Jun 29th, recieved Jul 2nd at TSC. Got FP notice for 10/03. Lawyer recieved Reciepts yesterday with Notice Date of 09/05. LUD was 9/3. Website says they recieved app 30 aug (did not make sense to me). Lawyer further told me i will get EAD Card directly before they will recieve approval notice. AP will be recieved by lawyers directly.
i got my FP notice (for my wife also) yesterday in mail for 9/25 appt.
from the receipt number on FP notice i checked it on USCIS website. it says that they received the 485 app on 30 aug. and the LUD on 485 is 9/3.
sent Jun 29th, recieved Jul 2nd at TSC. Got FP notice for 10/03. Lawyer recieved Reciepts yesterday with Notice Date of 09/05. LUD was 9/3. Website says they recieved app 30 aug (did not make sense to me). Lawyer further told me i will get EAD Card directly before they will recieve approval notice. AP will be recieved by lawyers directly.
nixstor
08-30 01:11 PM
My 25,000 AAdvantage miles to IV.
more...
glus
07-29 10:53 AM
As soon as you adjust your status to F1 your I-485 becomes void. Further having and EAD has nothing to do being on F1.
In short it is not easy to go back full time studying while your I-485 is pending.
If you are not sure, don't give untrue info!! His F1 will be unaffected until and when he starts using EAD. He will not be able to re-enter on F1, but as long as he does not use EAD he can maintain this status. To re-enter he will need to use AP and at that point he is no longer in F1.
Also, once you file I485, there is no problem going to school as long as he maintains the job he was originally sponsored for.
In short it is not easy to go back full time studying while your I-485 is pending.
If you are not sure, don't give untrue info!! His F1 will be unaffected until and when he starts using EAD. He will not be able to re-enter on F1, but as long as he does not use EAD he can maintain this status. To re-enter he will need to use AP and at that point he is no longer in F1.
Also, once you file I485, there is no problem going to school as long as he maintains the job he was originally sponsored for.
pal351
11-21 05:41 PM
Please share your experiences.
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
johnggberg
07-13 01:53 PM
hey i know how to play that, will that help :D
beemboy
10-31 10:33 AM
Guys, I need to reschedule visa appointment through the vfs website. I understand we have to cancel our appointment to reschedule; However, I am not sure if we have to fill out all the applications ( DS-156 & DS-157 ) again?
Did anyone go through this? Please let me know.
Did anyone go through this? Please let me know.
more...
krishnam70
08-16 01:04 PM
Most IO in India are not aware of "AP"...They ask if you have a GC , H1B ,F1 or tourist visa. Here's what we and our friends have done and it works..
Make a copy of AP and highlight the sentence where it mentions that "this person is allowed to travel....blah blah...". Paper clip the original AP along with it . The IO will cautiosly compare the original to the duplicate.And tell them that you are in the Final stage of GC process...
They have only few mins to look over all your docs...(PP, AP,EAD..Etc...so you might as well help them by highlighting what exactly he needs to see.
I guess its pure dumb luck or anything but did not have issues anywhere and i have used different routes, europe, middle east and even south east asia to travel and never once did anybody question AP. I guess the officers in india were trying to make a buck or two ( pun intended)
Make a copy of AP and highlight the sentence where it mentions that "this person is allowed to travel....blah blah...". Paper clip the original AP along with it . The IO will cautiosly compare the original to the duplicate.And tell them that you are in the Final stage of GC process...
They have only few mins to look over all your docs...(PP, AP,EAD..Etc...so you might as well help them by highlighting what exactly he needs to see.
I guess its pure dumb luck or anything but did not have issues anywhere and i have used different routes, europe, middle east and even south east asia to travel and never once did anybody question AP. I guess the officers in india were trying to make a buck or two ( pun intended)
Carlau
01-08 04:48 PM
Because this is the case where it is not clear if the H-1B was applied for before or after oct 2006 and if the H-4 was in H-1 status ever before.
more...
plassey
07-23 10:41 PM
I think, he should run for his life from his in laws now...:)
with a GC already fatest option might be to go to Mahabaleshwar for some honeymoon:)
with a GC already fatest option might be to go to Mahabaleshwar for some honeymoon:)
purgan
01-22 11:35 AM
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.
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.
more...
indyanguy
11-14 10:16 AM
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?
Yes, you can. With EAD you can even become CEO of any company but for EVL, you can submit offer letter from future-employer but remember once you get green card, you need to work for this "future-employer" for 6 months.
Hope this helps.
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?
Yes, you can. With EAD you can even become CEO of any company but for EVL, you can submit offer letter from future-employer but remember once you get green card, you need to work for this "future-employer" for 6 months.
Hope this helps.
Gravitation
06-22 10:01 AM
There are not enough numbers in the house to pass CIR. It may be pushed in Senate for political reasons and may pass easily, but there's no such hope -whatsoever- in the House.
If CIR is to ever pass, 2009 is the best year.
So, there's no hope of passing in what could the best possible year for CIR! Am I the only one to whom it all sounds very ominous?
If CIR is to ever pass, 2009 is the best year.
So, there's no hope of passing in what could the best possible year for CIR! Am I the only one to whom it all sounds very ominous?
more...
wandmaker
03-30 11:10 PM
Congratulations....
A couple of questions, which could everybody in analysis
- Did you use EAD ?
- Did you use AC21 ?
Thanks
Can you please fill your profile (chargability is missing....), this will also help IV to analyze (slice and dice)
A couple of questions, which could everybody in analysis
- Did you use EAD ?
- Did you use AC21 ?
Thanks
Can you please fill your profile (chargability is missing....), this will also help IV to analyze (slice and dice)
sukhyani
10-16 02:01 PM
speaking of SKIL Act, I dont know why I feel pretty optimistic that it might get passed during the lame duck session of Congress. Since December last year (Budget Reconciliation) we have seen House and Senate not agreeing on provisions favorable to us. This time both the chambers have identical bills favoring us. Let's keep our fingures crossed...
more...
starving_dog
10-02 01:06 PM
When I was H1-B, I never surrendered my I-94 and kept re-using my original. I crossed the border at least 25 times without any problem.
satya1234
03-26 01:11 PM
Hello,
I had applied for the H1 Extension in Sep 2009 and it went to Security Check. My Visa and I94 expired in Nov 2009. Recently, H1b transfer has been applied, and got the I129 approval but EOS(I94) has been rejected by saying that
" An Extension of Stay(EOS) mayn't be approved for an appllicant who failed to maintain his/her previously accorded status or where such status expired before the application or petition was filed( see CFR 214.1(c)(4) and 248.1(b))".
New employer says that i can't work for him till I94 accepts. So he is suggesting me togo India and get Visa stamped.
As i can work only 240 days from my I94 expiry date, i can't work after July 2010
so am planning to go to India to attend the embassy as soon as possible.
Some are saying that i am no supposed to stay here as I94 expired but when i says to my employer he says that you can stay and work as long as the current extension decision is pending. so i am scared about it. could you plz help me out on this.
Am also wondering that is there any chances of gettinga Visa rejected in India as my extension is in pending or they are going to keep in hold till my security
clearance is done. I am in fix what to do??.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks in Advance,
Satya.
I had applied for the H1 Extension in Sep 2009 and it went to Security Check. My Visa and I94 expired in Nov 2009. Recently, H1b transfer has been applied, and got the I129 approval but EOS(I94) has been rejected by saying that
" An Extension of Stay(EOS) mayn't be approved for an appllicant who failed to maintain his/her previously accorded status or where such status expired before the application or petition was filed( see CFR 214.1(c)(4) and 248.1(b))".
New employer says that i can't work for him till I94 accepts. So he is suggesting me togo India and get Visa stamped.
As i can work only 240 days from my I94 expiry date, i can't work after July 2010
so am planning to go to India to attend the embassy as soon as possible.
Some are saying that i am no supposed to stay here as I94 expired but when i says to my employer he says that you can stay and work as long as the current extension decision is pending. so i am scared about it. could you plz help me out on this.
Am also wondering that is there any chances of gettinga Visa rejected in India as my extension is in pending or they are going to keep in hold till my security
clearance is done. I am in fix what to do??.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks in Advance,
Satya.
cool_desi_gc
09-28 07:18 PM
My name(s) were mispeld as well...My lawyer talked to USCIS and sorted it out.
gcnirvana
10-25 05:31 PM
Primary and secondary applications are totally independent once its receipted. I got my EAD 3 weeks ago but nothing for my wife. The status says 'Received and pending'. After FP, my LUD got updated but again nothing for my wife.
Go figure...:confused:
Go figure...:confused:
smgms
07-11 09:51 AM
I would recommend get the report both for you and your wife.
0 comments:
Post a Comment