Mike Tyson Tattoos

Thank you katrina for your response.
My fear is that if I have an interview, I would fall to pieces and get so nervous to answer questions.
I also wonder if my entries from 1986 will show up when they check the records.


I think you can take your attorney to interview , If at all you have an interview. If you were never out of status since your last entry you should be good BTW whats your PD?

we have 99 guests.. please register and contribute.. help yourself by helping IV...

This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.

learning01
From Yale Global Online:

Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal


Give Us Your Skilled Masses

Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005



With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.


An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!


This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.


So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.


Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.


To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.


Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."


Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.


Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.


Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.


Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.


I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.


Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.


Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583

Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.



Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico

What is the confusion?

thanks Ramba. so under normal conditions if both the cases x and Y are preapproved and once Visa numbers are available x will get GC first as he has earlier PD.will we get any notification once our case is preapproved?

Sorry for replying to myself & bumping the thread, but I've got more information on my case and I'd like to share just in case anyone else will end up in a similar situation in the future.

I've tried to speak with an immigration attorney and with the flight school staff. The attorney initially told me there should not be any problems as long as I maintain my J-1 status by performing research full-time at the university; then he went on to check more carefully and became less convinced because full-load (> 18 hours a week) flight training requires a M-1 visa. I do not know if I should ask him to look deeper into the matter, as my situation will definitely not qualify as full load training (2-3 hours a week tops).

On the other hand, the flight school staff contacted TSA people and talked with the Department of State. The TSA told that they are OK with my training as long as I get the appropriate clearance, which I did; the Department of State (as I have already states) basically said that if I'm legally in the country and the TSA is cool with it then I can train. I've also come to understand that I will not attend any formal classes (I will self-study the theoretical notions required) and that my practical training will amount to 2-3 hours a week at most.

My understanding of the subject is that I would not be eligible for a M-1 visa, as in any case I will not be busy with flight training all the time. I also believe that were I to start flying this would not intefere with my J-1 status as long as I comply with all the requirements (i.e. work full-time on the project I've come to the US for, otherwise not work on or off-campus nor move to another university, etc.). Finally, from what I've heard, there seems to be no regulation against pursuing flight training for people that are already legally in the US if this does not constitue some sort of professional training, and flying light sport aircraft is what is more or less as far as it gets from professional flying.

If anyone (whether an attorney or otherwise) notes any fallacy in my reasoning please let me know -- I still have time to stop and reconsider before committing to anything that might undermine my legal presence here in the US.

Thank you everyone,
Pierluigi

wife is a bug that can't be debugged no matter what's the fix

desighee watch out she could swahaa you mate

Thank you; my reading of the law is also the same. However, a few of years ago (post-2001) both inside and outside counsel hired by my company came to a different conclusion. Hence, my parsing of the words.

Yeah, that's the beauty of being a lawyer, you can interpret the same thing differently, get your money and do not bear any responsibility :)

No need to register PIO kid till 15 years of age.

Can you please tell me, when was this announced? Is this a new rule ?
I think people converting from F1 to H1 go to mexico.

So what exactly is meant by this switching? How/What does it affect? Where or how you/company/USICS decide whether you are on H1 or EAD?

Thanks coopheal, desi3933.

But in case of switching from H1b to EAD (while working for H1b/GC sponsoring employer), there is no termination, changes in the employee�s eligibility or change in job duties. So no requirement to cancel H1b.

February visa bulletin will be out this week any day.

What is the opinion of gurus who analysed that latest USCS numbers about dates? what do you predict?

thanks for changing the title... now let the guess work begin....

Great.. Thank you..

Very good thred.


contribution close to 500$ so far wiling to contribute another 500$ in next 5 months.

So USCIS will never see the flowers becoz they are boxed.. and they will never get delivered becoz they are being routed from the airport itself. No major news media covered the few deliveries at USCIS.. What was the point of the campaign again?

For those of you who is interested in one line Q/A

"Is the flower campaign working? Yes"

"Are we good enough with what we have done? Not 100%"

What happened

We were at the loading dock by 10 30 am ( Delivery estimate was between 11 am and 1 pm) and DHL appeared to
have already delivered around 50 boxes once around 9 am. All the flowers we sent are boxed . The visuals will
be boxes and not flowers in the evening when the youtube video will be uploaded. UPS delivered nex. We got the
video of the whole delivery and so did the CNN-IBN/Voice of America folks. There were around 30 boxes or so from
UPS. Next Fedex delivered and there were around 10-15 boxes coming out. While we were doing the recording one of the
officers politely told us not to capture federal buildings and we told them that we were only capturing the delivery of
flowers. After this what ever truck was coming in, they were reversing and pushing back into the dock so that the
delivery cannot be taped. CNN-IBN reporter asked for permission to go inside the loading dock and she was promptly
denied any permission. Then We had a down pour for almost 20-30 minutes and we had to leave the place.
It appears that the S&H dept now knows that most of the flowers are being delivered by DHL/UPS/FEDEX, they are taking
care of the diversion at National airport it self.

In the future if any one wants to do a flower campaign, Please select 2 local florists
(only two florists, in that particular city) and have people call and place orders/online. That way
we can talk with 2 florists and track their delivery easily for picture/video. Every one who tried to call
FTD/proflowers had alot of trouble getting any thing out of them. Actually, we cant blame them because they
are not doing it locally,instead they are putting their orders via national carriers.

Where do we go from here

If people really want to go out and get the main stream media attention, DC is the perfect choice. How ever,Don't plan on a weekend. If we do it right, we could be live on TV and the whole country will ask whats going on, along with the law makers. That will offer a platform for solving the issue at its roots.If you really want to do this, Dont come up with reasons like I dont have time off for a day or I have a project due. I can understand if 1 or 2% of our active members say it, but when 98% of our active members say that I can understand what it is. May be its time we figure out whether we prefer anonymity and pontifical verbatim on the online forum to expressing our concern/disappointment openly. Do not get offended and start flaming me. Just my thoughts.

Prince - If you ask me it doesn't matter coz ur back to the processing of your I-485. I heard some cases usually take longer to update.

Can you pls furnish specific details such as:

Denial notice Date:
When did you/your lawyer apply the MTR:
Other update dates such as (Soft LUD's, Hard LUD's):
MTR Approval Date:

Sorry for asking more specific details. My I-485 got denied too but for missing G-325A forms on both my wife's and my case.

Hi ->
I got a lawsuit(summons) from my previous Employer ( I quit this consultancy in Oct 2010 ) and got this two days back with below points . I need to respond to them with in 30days. I quit this company has he hasn't paid any bench salary and haven't do any proper marketing - which were force me choose a permanent job.
So could some one please advise me the right lawyer to handle this.I need to answer to this summons and need file a new case against them.

Points that summons contain :
FIRST COUNT : Breach of Contract
Second Count : Tortious Interference
Third Count : Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Fourth Count : Unjust Enrichment
Fifth Count :Misrepresentation and Fraud
SIXTH count : Breach of Duty of Loyalty

Really I would you appreciate you guys advise me right way to handle this.

From India
in Chemical Technology 4 Yeards B.Tech degree
HBTI Kanpur UP

Register in USCIS.gov and then enter the I140 info in your portfolio and you will see the LUD(last updated date)
18003755283
and then press 12126

Thank you! :)

If your PD is in May'06 or early Jun'06, I think paying a visit to USCIS center won't hurt. Checking online status is a waste of time. At least you'll know what's going on with it. The IO I went to was very nice lady and gave me all the details. I thought that there would a line of GC aspirants like me :) waiting in USCIS center (in bay area) but to my surprise it was empty! Hope this helps

the free ead/ap is based on the $1010 fee for 485..so if u file ur 485 now.. u r pretty much in the non free group

I don't mean to raise any hopes...but so many LUDs could be change of hands on your case for further review, which may indicate a decision soon.

Good luck and keep us posted.