pamposh
09-26 11:15 AM
Ok for a long time I have been thinking about getting enrolled in a Phd program and this year I was hoping I get a chance to chase my dream after having the GC... well it did not work the way I thought/planed and now I want to weigh my options.
here are my details:
EB2 I with PD Sep 2005
Primary Applicant
currently on H1B
I 140 approved early 2006
Approved EAD (till Oct 2010)
Approved AP
So my questions is:
Is there a way I can join a univ as full time research student?
Can I take a leave of absense (ofcourse w/o pay) from my current job to join as a student?
If anyone knows anything about this kind of situation I would really appreciate your help.
Thanks for everyone in advance...
Pamposh
here are my details:
EB2 I with PD Sep 2005
Primary Applicant
currently on H1B
I 140 approved early 2006
Approved EAD (till Oct 2010)
Approved AP
So my questions is:
Is there a way I can join a univ as full time research student?
Can I take a leave of absense (ofcourse w/o pay) from my current job to join as a student?
If anyone knows anything about this kind of situation I would really appreciate your help.
Thanks for everyone in advance...
Pamposh
wallpaper of your irthday wishes a
ayyadav
04-29 07:50 PM
Today, I was reviewing my I-485 application form and found that Under Part 3 Processing Information, we have to fill-up Place of last entry in United state (City/State):
I put my name there instead of Chicago/IL by mistake. I got I-485 receipt # and case is pending.
How can I correct this information? Is there any way? Please help me.
I put my name there instead of Chicago/IL by mistake. I got I-485 receipt # and case is pending.
How can I correct this information? Is there any way? Please help me.
RDRD
05-18 12:51 AM
My wife was on same boat as many students. Her H-1B petition had an rfe. RFE was later denied and we still have MTR. This year she got her H-1B approved without RFE. We did specify in application about previous year rejection.
Bottom line is there are no easy trends to observe. Luck seems to play a big role than anything else. Obviously, all the documents must be in good shape.
Bottom line is there are no easy trends to observe. Luck seems to play a big role than anything else. Obviously, all the documents must be in good shape.
2011 happy irthday greetings mom.
Blog Feeds
08-18 02:10 AM
Immigration Lawyers Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
The new visa bulletin is out at this link: http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5113.html. Employment-based categories are as follows: EB-1 remains current for all countries; EB-2 remains current, except for India and China which are at May 2006; EB-3 is at Dec. 2004 for all countries, except for India (Jan. 2002), China (Oct. 2003), and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-3 other workers is at March 2003 for all countries, except India (Jan. 2002)and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-4, religious workers, EB-5, and targeted employment areas and regional centers are all current. Family based petitions are backlogged, with the most recent date at Jan. 2010.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/hHcICkxAgKc
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/hHcICkxAgKc/september_2010_department_of_s.html)
The new visa bulletin is out at this link: http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5113.html. Employment-based categories are as follows: EB-1 remains current for all countries; EB-2 remains current, except for India and China which are at May 2006; EB-3 is at Dec. 2004 for all countries, except for India (Jan. 2002), China (Oct. 2003), and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-3 other workers is at March 2003 for all countries, except India (Jan. 2002)and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-4, religious workers, EB-5, and targeted employment areas and regional centers are all current. Family based petitions are backlogged, with the most recent date at Jan. 2010.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/hHcICkxAgKc
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/hHcICkxAgKc/september_2010_department_of_s.html)
more...
T-O
04-08 04:15 AM
last one I guess. That's me holding my IPod.. :D AWEsome!! :P
salvador marley
05-01 10:21 PM
dont worry - its gone :(
more...
mrdinh
August 15th, 2004, 11:03 PM
I don't mind the noise overall but this camera is very noisy in the shadows...i shoot a picture in the sunlight and then print it...picture quality is awesome but in the shadows...man so much noise...
maybe the d2x will solve the day?...lol
what do other d2h shooters think?
thanks
phat
maybe the d2x will solve the day?...lol
what do other d2h shooters think?
thanks
phat
2010 Birthday wishes.
apb
07-19 07:25 PM
It should be as per June bulletin. My lawyer also has same opinion
more...
Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
hair was my dear mom#39;s birthday
Blog Feeds
07-30 06:30 PM
Amid all the pre-election hurling this week of vituperative, partisan accusations over a Federal Court's partial injunction against AZ SB 1070 (Arizona's foray into federal immigration enforcement), you would be forgiven if you overlooked two small but significant creatures in the immigration ecosystem. A pair of remedial immigration bills, passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, await a vote in the Senate. Their significance is not merely because they are examples of a rara avis -- that nearly extinct form of billmaking distinctive for its bipartisan features. Nor are they significant for the hopeful promise suggested by their titles -- The...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/07/my-entry-2.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/07/my-entry-2.html)
more...
harshailan
07-18 06:24 PM
Hi,
I sent my EB2 I-485 application on July 5th, 2007. Didnot receive any rejection or receipt number.
My question is can i send my wifes application immediately without getting my 485 receipt number. I have the copy of my I140 receipt number. Can i add this to my wife's application and send?
What will happen if i send without my 485 receipt number? will i get a RFE or a rejection?
Thanks in Advance!
I sent my EB2 I-485 application on July 5th, 2007. Didnot receive any rejection or receipt number.
My question is can i send my wifes application immediately without getting my 485 receipt number. I have the copy of my I140 receipt number. Can i add this to my wife's application and send?
What will happen if i send without my 485 receipt number? will i get a RFE or a rejection?
Thanks in Advance!
hot this irthday greeting for
mchatrvd
09-16 05:41 PM
Everyone
I have couple of questions regarding AC21 process.
1. AC21 does not have any tracking number. Then what does USCIS does with the AC21 package? Is it placed under a separate heap of AC21 files?
2. Does IO ever comes to know that you have applied an AC21 unless he issues RFE to check on your current employment?
3. The AC21 is never attached to your 485 application, as there is no tracking on AC21, right?
4. If you applied for an AC21 and Io issues RFE for current employment, do you need to send a copy of AC21 at that time to assert that you indeed informed USCIS?
Thanks
I have couple of questions regarding AC21 process.
1. AC21 does not have any tracking number. Then what does USCIS does with the AC21 package? Is it placed under a separate heap of AC21 files?
2. Does IO ever comes to know that you have applied an AC21 unless he issues RFE to check on your current employment?
3. The AC21 is never attached to your 485 application, as there is no tracking on AC21, right?
4. If you applied for an AC21 and Io issues RFE for current employment, do you need to send a copy of AC21 at that time to assert that you indeed informed USCIS?
Thanks
more...
house funny irthday poems for mom.
sanjay
09-28 03:24 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ace7ec20cfbd4110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=82b06a9fec745110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
Thanks for update.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=82b06a9fec745110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
Thanks for update.
tattoo Mother Happy Birthday
tfakhan
01-10 10:43 AM
I was trying to find out if one can transfer from b1/b2 visa category to H1- B visa within the valid period of stay(i.e before the expiry of the I-94).
more...
pictures happy irthday greetings mom.
Dhundhun
07-21 02:43 AM
Polling tracker can provide better idea, how much time it is taking to get AP form NSC
This is link to Polling tracker for EAD from NSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20361
This is link to Polling tracker for EAD from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20363
This is link to Polling tracker for AP from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20364
This is link to Polling tracker for EAD from NSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20361
This is link to Polling tracker for EAD from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20363
This is link to Polling tracker for AP from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20364
dresses of my irthday wishes.
rick_rajvanshi
02-25 07:26 PM
I found the following link on USCIS web site
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=97e19c337879d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Does this mean that USCIS is trying to speedup pending 485's ?
Read here and draw your own conclusions
http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-2/AOS.html
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=97e19c337879d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Does this mean that USCIS is trying to speedup pending 485's ?
Read here and draw your own conclusions
http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-2/AOS.html
more...
makeup irthday greetings mom.
theshiningsun
02-12 04:51 AM
hi attorneys,
any input on this plz?
thx,
any input on this plz?
thx,
girlfriend Birthday Wishes for my Mother;
vnsriv
08-14 04:24 PM
Guys,
Have anybody feeling the big difference between Texas and Nebraska service center processing? Texas is giving greencards and June filers most of them have got EAD and Advanced Paroles. Is immigrationvoice doing anything to escalate the situation.
Nebraska June filers, post your updates here.
Just received FP notice for spouse's from NSC
Have anybody feeling the big difference between Texas and Nebraska service center processing? Texas is giving greencards and June filers most of them have got EAD and Advanced Paroles. Is immigrationvoice doing anything to escalate the situation.
Nebraska June filers, post your updates here.
Just received FP notice for spouse's from NSC
hairstyles Birthday Wishes For Mom -POST
cantbelieve
07-06 02:07 PM
Hi,
Please help me out on this.
My employer provided me with substituion LC with PD: Oct 2002, EB, and filed an I140 using it last year. The RD on it is Nov 2005. The 140 had 2 RFEs both asking for submission of original LC. As per the attorney the original LC was submitted with the application, and the attorney requested the CIS to get the copy of LC from DOL, as per the regulation as she says. Now this week CIS as send a denial on this case.
My questions are:
1. The attorney says, she can no longer get the duplicate of the LC from the DOL, as it's an old substitution case. Is there any other way, or solution on this?
2. The origianal LC was filed along with the I140 petition. Is that usual? Should all the originals must have been submitted only on request?
3. Is there any way to make this case alive again? What are the chances of approval if we reopen the case.
Thanks,
CB
Please help me out on this.
My employer provided me with substituion LC with PD: Oct 2002, EB, and filed an I140 using it last year. The RD on it is Nov 2005. The 140 had 2 RFEs both asking for submission of original LC. As per the attorney the original LC was submitted with the application, and the attorney requested the CIS to get the copy of LC from DOL, as per the regulation as she says. Now this week CIS as send a denial on this case.
My questions are:
1. The attorney says, she can no longer get the duplicate of the LC from the DOL, as it's an old substitution case. Is there any other way, or solution on this?
2. The origianal LC was filed along with the I140 petition. Is that usual? Should all the originals must have been submitted only on request?
3. Is there any way to make this case alive again? What are the chances of approval if we reopen the case.
Thanks,
CB
tcsonly
07-24 07:40 PM
For how long you are waiting for GC and for how long you are willing to wait more for GC?
A lot of people have been for a long time. That is the reason IV has formed to eliminate/minimize the wait.
I don't think any one is willing to wait here !!!!
BTW, what's the point in your question ?
-C.
A lot of people have been for a long time. That is the reason IV has formed to eliminate/minimize the wait.
I don't think any one is willing to wait here !!!!
BTW, what's the point in your question ?
-C.
pointlesswait
12-10 12:27 PM
how long does it take for USCIS to issue a receipt date..for 140's???
my attorney had said she sent the docs around nov 20.. should i not have received the date/notice by now?:confused:
my attorney had said she sent the docs around nov 20.. should i not have received the date/notice by now?:confused:
No comments:
Post a Comment