Mike Tyson Tattoos

http://forums.businessweek.com/bw-bschools/

I remember reading a thread in getting into bschool section. I could not find that thread...


Here are some related threads
http://forums.businessweek.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=bw-bschools&tid=80037

http://forums.businessweek.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=bw-bschools&tid=79931

http://forums.businessweek.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=bw-bschools&tid=80055

a related bw article
http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/mar2009/bs20090319_113428.htm?chan=bschools_bschool+index+ page_top+stories

Another bummer, of course, is that without GC you will be charged "out of state" tuition no matter how long you have lived in that state, except California and Texas, where, as far as I know, even illegals can get "in-state" tuition.:cool:

I am a July 2 filer. I got 485 receipt notice from California Service Center with receipt date of july 2. Today, in mail, I got another notice called transfer notice, which states that my case has been transferred to Nebraska. The receipt date on the transfer notice is Sep 5. Is it nromal to have such diferent receipt dates? Will USCIS process by receipt date on receipt notice or on transfer notice?

I believe the AP needs to be approved before the person leaves the country for it to be used while coming back. This needs to be clarified though.


From your post, it sounds like she doesn't have an H4 stamp on her passport, but only the approval notice. She can't re-enter the US only by showing the approval notice at the port of entry. She needs to have the stamp on her passport as you already may be aware of.

Sending AP (or any other immigration document in original) outside of the US (e.g., to India) via courier/mail is risky, if not forbidden by law.

GG_007

PS: Not a lawyer, just my personal opinion.

I told yaaa. I am also hoping... I filed for EAD and AP on Aug 10. Guess, you should get it in a week. Congrats!!!

Real estate investment right now is very good. Buy some foreclosures cheap (under 50k) then rent. Use the equity to buy more houses. Daisy chain rinse and repeat. Within a year especially with this economy you will be living the American Dream.

If you are looking in 300K range with best schools,large indian community then Villages of Urbana in Frederick is one of the better choices.
The property tax is pretty low here because it is in Frederick county. I hope this information helps you. The elementary,middle and high schools here are one of the best in the state.

GE is not a person. All of GE employees as well as share holders pay taxes on their income. Why do you want to double tax the companies and make them go out of business? Thats one reason companies have to setup operations in tax haven countries.

It's as if the wife has to pay taxes on her salary and then the husband has to pay taxes on the pocket money he gets from his wife as monthly allowance to run the house hold. (Just reversed the traditional places of husband and wife for fun).

If it is EB2, forget about it. EB2 and 3 yr degree is big No No. If it is EB3 (seems unlikely as you filed in 04/2007 and EB3 was not current) consult good lawyer and file MTR.

HTH



- Pre-approved labor dated 03/2004
- Filed 140 in 04/2007 and filed 485 in 08/2007. Got EADs as well
- RFE on 140 after 2 years waiting (in fact it was on the last day of 2nd year. In between, it was passed thru all the 4 centers and came back to same place where it was filed). Education mismatch and other stuff. Employer responded in 21 days
- 2nd RFE on 140 after 30 days - Education mismatch - Again responded
- There was no response even after 60 days, so we called and created a service request.
- Finally the 140 has been denied today. I did not get the notice yet. I'm thinking, it is because of Education mismatch

The labor was for 4years degree and I have 3 years degree + 1 year post graduate diploma with 8 years experience by the time filing 140. And I did my masters in US, but I got this after couple of months of I filed my 140.

Please advice what are options available for me.

Way to go Pappu and IV.

Option 1:
You could write a letter to USCIS to let them know that this attorney who filed your I-485 does not represent you anymore and future correspondence be addressed to you directly and also to revoke the G-28. You will not get any letter from USCIS confirming that your request was processed.

Option 2:
You could hire a new attorney to represent you. In that case he would file a new G-28, the USCIS does send a letter confirming that they accepted your new attorney representation. Meanwhile, until this happens, all the correspondence will go to the old attorney who could potentially screw up your case.

If you are lucky enough and don't get a RFE till the new G-28 is accepted, You are SAFE. Also, any attorney you hire will charge you the FULL fees for I-485 filing that will be at least $3000.00 plus additional $5000.00 (If your case gets complicated). My best bet for you is to use option 1 and save your hard earned $. As you'll be taking your chances anyways.

You should urge LIVE to start up an emergency rescue service (similar to what AAA does), i.e., to get an attorney who would help taking up cases for members only who suffer from unscrupulous attorneys for free and charge a low monthly membership fees till one gets the green card. I hope someone from LIVE is reading this post?

Just say "All izz well" and watch out for the bulletin :)

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

bump. How should I approach my AOS given my case above?

Does anyone know if it is easier to get medical residency on EAD as opposed to H1/J1 or are you considered in the same boat as H1/J1 applicants?

thanks


On H1/J1 you have to find a sponsor to accept you in their program. With EAD you can work for anyone.Of course the pool of institutions accepting folks on EAD is bigger than H1/J1 .

Whether it's easier or not depends on your credentials , talent etc

My 140 was approved in 2007 and today I got a text message on phone that my application is sent to Nebraska, NE to review and status changed from Approved to Initial review.

Had any one been in same situation or had seen this before with some one else?
Two years after my I-140 was approved, status changed to below. My attorney filed my I-140 choosing CP. CP applications are processed at DOS. As I applied for I-485 in July'07 DOS sent it back to USCIS. Your case looks different. Well I have heard of instances where USCIS reviews approved applications I hope your case is a simple computer glitch. I-140 is employers application so you cannot contact customer service or IO regarding that. Ask your attorney or employer to contact USCIS.

Your priority date is current for more than 6 months now. Did you take any steps to expedite (congressman, senator or writ of mandamus)?

"Post Decision Activity

On March 20, 2008, a USCIS office received this case from the State Department with a request that we review it. We will notify you when we complete our review, or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283."

the two are separate as they belong to different countries. you can maintain both as long as you fulfill the requirements to keep both of the permits current.

Is FP Prepone possible

If possible, can someone tell me if you had to call them in advance to go before your scheduled date for your FP. I am in a similar situation where I am travelling to India on 11/14 and the appointment is on 11/17. I do not want to postpone the appointment as it might take a long time to receive again.

If you had to call can some one tell me which number to call. All my receipts, EAD and appointment were received from TSC and the ASC field office is in Tampa, FL. If you did not have to call, then do we just go there in the morning and have our FP done. Any inputs appreciated.

Thanks
Govardhan

I filed my conversion case two months ago, they have not withdrawn my BEC case yet since BEC had not sent 45 days letter so far and BEC could not locate my old case to verify with new case, so my conversion case dormant at PERM as well as old case @ BEC. no use of PERM conversion if you have not received 45 days letter, it may be helpful for who have received 45days letter and waiting for BEC decision.


Thx,
PD -->01/07/2004
RIR/TX
No 45 days letter yet
PERM Conversion filled on 02/07/06

There does not appear to be any rational pattern in PWD processing times. In fact, in typically unfair DOL fashion, it seems that PWD requests submitted in mid February are being approved in about 30 days or less while many submitted earlier are still languishing. So, submitting a second PWD request now might get you a PWD sooner than waiting for one submitted in January. The only down side in doing this is that it could further clog what is already a pretty dysfunctional system.

Another issue of concern about the new PWD system is that it has been generating wildly arbitrary determinations some of which reference SOC codes and experience levels different from those on the actual PWD request. Not documents I would want to have to rely on in the event of an audit...

:) Yes, one of the founding principles of USA "No taxation without representation" has gone down the drain for all 'temporary' workers...

Some countries have tax treaties with USA whereby, their citizens are not required to pay medicare/social security taxes, wonder if India can have such a treaty...