Nole2007
10-02 03:45 PM
I got the recipt notices in mail. When I check the status online i get "validation error" message. Dont understand why the system is not pulling my application details for 485, EAD and AP. Mine is NSC and recipt notice starts with LIN:mad:
wallpaper justin bieber purple supras.
desi3933
03-03 11:54 AM
Thank you Desi!
Man, that is one heck of confusing language, I am still trying to understand it.
Main line is this -
In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.
Translation -
If person has multiple approved I-140 petitions under EB-1, EB-2, and Eb-3 sections, he./she can claim the earliest PD date to any of his/her I-140 approved petitions.
An example taken from Michael Aytes Memo (09/12/2006), section 22.2(d)(3) page 28:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Man, that is one heck of confusing language, I am still trying to understand it.
Main line is this -
In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.
Translation -
If person has multiple approved I-140 petitions under EB-1, EB-2, and Eb-3 sections, he./she can claim the earliest PD date to any of his/her I-140 approved petitions.
An example taken from Michael Aytes Memo (09/12/2006), section 22.2(d)(3) page 28:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Prashanthi
05-21 11:17 AM
When the USCIS finds out and makes a determination that you are out of status, that is when you will be in trouble, or if you go outside the country for a visa, if they notice that you W-2 has a very low amount, they may refuse to give you a visa. When you file the transfer if the USCIS finds out that you have violated your status, they will still approve you h-1 for consular processing, they may not approve your request for a transfer.
2011 Justin Bieber in Velvet Blazer
k_sing
09-20 12:17 PM
Responding to latest response:
"Member" does not mean an employee.
As a member I would have access to their proprietary software to do trades ( just like having an account with any other broker)
A member however has no voting rights etc. ( it's a private LLC/trust)
At the end of the year, instead of a 1099 tax form, the trust would provide a share of profits generated by "my stock trades" and it is instead done on K1 tax form, which is treated as income.
About the internet biz:
I would be the only one "owning" / running the biz.. as I own the domain ( it's not a LLC ).
Can I receive income checks in my name ?
thanks!
"Member" does not mean an employee.
As a member I would have access to their proprietary software to do trades ( just like having an account with any other broker)
A member however has no voting rights etc. ( it's a private LLC/trust)
At the end of the year, instead of a 1099 tax form, the trust would provide a share of profits generated by "my stock trades" and it is instead done on K1 tax form, which is treated as income.
About the internet biz:
I would be the only one "owning" / running the biz.. as I own the domain ( it's not a LLC ).
Can I receive income checks in my name ?
thanks!
more...
bkshres
10-20 11:28 AM
Hi
I used AC21 to switch the company. First my new company said I have to use my existing old attorney for my I485 case. So, I asked my old attorney to prepare AC21 documents and mailed to USCIS, which is already done.
But now the attorney from new company is saying that they are again doing AC21 documents and will be sending to USCIS. On top, new attorney is asking me to fill G28 form. Is it necessary to file AC21 document twice or make it too confusing? And this G28 is only for me, not for my wife. I am confused with whole thing. How will this work? with my case transferred to new attorney and my wife's case still with old attorney? I also heard from this new attorney that most of the time G28 and AC21 documents will never reach to USCIS file and in that case, USCIS will communicate with old attorney. On one hand, I have to tell my old attorney that I am changing attorney but on other hand I am not even sure whether USCIS will accept or not. My old attorney has been always helpful and he has all my information and original documents.
Is it advisable to switch attorney when you have I-485 pending? and is this filing of AC21 documents twice necessary or will make more confusion in my case? What is advisable in this situation? What should I say to this new company attorney and what should I say to my old attorney? I am in big dilemma...
Please help. I need your suggestion.
Thanks,
BK
I used AC21 to switch the company. First my new company said I have to use my existing old attorney for my I485 case. So, I asked my old attorney to prepare AC21 documents and mailed to USCIS, which is already done.
But now the attorney from new company is saying that they are again doing AC21 documents and will be sending to USCIS. On top, new attorney is asking me to fill G28 form. Is it necessary to file AC21 document twice or make it too confusing? And this G28 is only for me, not for my wife. I am confused with whole thing. How will this work? with my case transferred to new attorney and my wife's case still with old attorney? I also heard from this new attorney that most of the time G28 and AC21 documents will never reach to USCIS file and in that case, USCIS will communicate with old attorney. On one hand, I have to tell my old attorney that I am changing attorney but on other hand I am not even sure whether USCIS will accept or not. My old attorney has been always helpful and he has all my information and original documents.
Is it advisable to switch attorney when you have I-485 pending? and is this filing of AC21 documents twice necessary or will make more confusion in my case? What is advisable in this situation? What should I say to this new company attorney and what should I say to my old attorney? I am in big dilemma...
Please help. I need your suggestion.
Thanks,
BK
singhsa3
10-21 07:00 PM
Any updates
more...
pappu
05-12 08:31 AM
It may be a good idea for people like me who cannot make it to the event to call in to this event.
can we have some kind of confrence call number we can call and listen to the speakers?
can we have some kind of confrence call number we can call and listen to the speakers?
2010 purple high tops justin bieber
vemulapallisk
07-29 03:17 PM
I am in the same boat and need to post the paper in the next couple of days. Can somenoe please help me. I would greatly appreciate your help.
My priority date is Oct 2005 and i applied for i485 (EB2) in July 2007. I am planning on filing i-485 for my wife as a dependant/derivative of my application on August 2, 2010. My i-140 is approved. My case is pending at Texas Service Center. According to the i485 instructions and USCIS website (both revised on 12/03/09), the application has to go to :
USCIS
Attn: AOS
2501 S. State Hwy, 121 Business
Suite 400
Lewisville, TX 75067
My lawyers office informed me that the address to post is:
4141 N. St. Augustine Road
Dallas, TX 75227
I couldnt find this Dallas, TX address on neither the i485 instructions form or the USCIS website. Can someone who filed recently (after 12/03/09) to Texas Service Center confirm the correct address please. It would be of great help since i need to file the papers in the next couple of days.
Thanks a lot in advance
My priority date is Oct 2005 and i applied for i485 (EB2) in July 2007. I am planning on filing i-485 for my wife as a dependant/derivative of my application on August 2, 2010. My i-140 is approved. My case is pending at Texas Service Center. According to the i485 instructions and USCIS website (both revised on 12/03/09), the application has to go to :
USCIS
Attn: AOS
2501 S. State Hwy, 121 Business
Suite 400
Lewisville, TX 75067
My lawyers office informed me that the address to post is:
4141 N. St. Augustine Road
Dallas, TX 75227
I couldnt find this Dallas, TX address on neither the i485 instructions form or the USCIS website. Can someone who filed recently (after 12/03/09) to Texas Service Center confirm the correct address please. It would be of great help since i need to file the papers in the next couple of days.
Thanks a lot in advance
more...
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
hair Supra TK Society Men#39;s Rosso
sandy_anand
01-24 10:12 AM
TeddyKoochu, based on the 2010 report, can we estimate what the total EB quota would be for 2011?
more...
addsf345
07-17 07:19 PM
Please read this: Entering Canada � U.S. Consular Services in Canada (http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/enter_canada.asp)
Thanks! this is useful link anyway. I quickly browsed through it. But still the question I asked is not answered.
The thread is for people with Canadian perm residentship and also have US green card. They may face issue due to conflict of interest (intent) between both white/green cards.
while, most of us do not have Canada perm residentship. why should we face that issue? I was only concerned with any other issue due to the fact of mere visiting canada on greencard? if it can raise any suspicion (or any technical issue) of abandoning the pending or approved GC?
Thanks! this is useful link anyway. I quickly browsed through it. But still the question I asked is not answered.
The thread is for people with Canadian perm residentship and also have US green card. They may face issue due to conflict of interest (intent) between both white/green cards.
while, most of us do not have Canada perm residentship. why should we face that issue? I was only concerned with any other issue due to the fact of mere visiting canada on greencard? if it can raise any suspicion (or any technical issue) of abandoning the pending or approved GC?
hot justin bieber purple high tops
telekinesis
09-05 02:40 AM
No dissing the Pixel Stretch, ya'll betta recognize, my Splash would look even cr@pier without the pixel stretch!
more...
house dresses justin bieber purple high tops. justin bieber purple high tops
kate123
03-07 01:49 PM
Hi Smuggymba, very sorry to see you in such a situation...
It is my understanding that you can get a 3 year H1 (transfer) with an approved I 140. However for a successful transfer, it is required to have 140 in approved state. If for some reason your 140 is cancelled or revoked before you could initiate transfer process, chances are that your H1 transfer may be denied.
My advice is to you: transfer your H1 as soon as possible before 140 is revoked....
Coming to retaining your PD, No matter what, PD is always yours... Once you move to a new company you can port your PD even if old company revokes your 140....
All the best
6 months.
Can we renew H1 after we're laid off based on 140 approval. I'm thinking going for regular or premium extension because it's about the time for extension. I still have a job this week...not sure about next...so looks like premium is the best. At least I'll have H1 extension for 3 yrs when I jump into the job market again....or is this irrelevant and I can renew even after laid off.
It is my understanding that you can get a 3 year H1 (transfer) with an approved I 140. However for a successful transfer, it is required to have 140 in approved state. If for some reason your 140 is cancelled or revoked before you could initiate transfer process, chances are that your H1 transfer may be denied.
My advice is to you: transfer your H1 as soon as possible before 140 is revoked....
Coming to retaining your PD, No matter what, PD is always yours... Once you move to a new company you can port your PD even if old company revokes your 140....
All the best
6 months.
Can we renew H1 after we're laid off based on 140 approval. I'm thinking going for regular or premium extension because it's about the time for extension. I still have a job this week...not sure about next...so looks like premium is the best. At least I'll have H1 extension for 3 yrs when I jump into the job market again....or is this irrelevant and I can renew even after laid off.
tattoo Supra Skytop High Tops Ope Red
americandesi
08-11 03:44 PM
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to “Ability to pay” and “AC21”
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let’s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn’t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it’s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let’s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn’t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it’s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
more...
pictures ieber purple supra. justin
gcinterview
05-12 04:47 PM
I'm a new member on this forum and my case got transferred to MOUNT LAUREL, NJ office.
History:
My 485 was filed in NSC in July'2007.
I have 2 I-140 petitions, and dates are current(Eb2 India).
Code 3 FP done in Dec'2007 and Name check and FBI background checks cleared.
Case got transferred from NSC to local office in April'2009
After about 8 days of transfer to the local office I received Code 1 Finger print notices.
What does that mean? Any one had similar experiences?
Here is the message I got last month.
We transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our, MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Thanks for the link. Looks like I will have to get ready for an interview!!!!
History:
My 485 was filed in NSC in July'2007.
I have 2 I-140 petitions, and dates are current(Eb2 India).
Code 3 FP done in Dec'2007 and Name check and FBI background checks cleared.
Case got transferred from NSC to local office in April'2009
After about 8 days of transfer to the local office I received Code 1 Finger print notices.
What does that mean? Any one had similar experiences?
Here is the message I got last month.
We transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our, MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Thanks for the link. Looks like I will have to get ready for an interview!!!!
dresses Justin Bieber Supra Skytop
gbof
04-08 07:40 PM
are 2 locations based on states where you live.
Dallas and Phoenix.
If you live in:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Guam, or the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.
Mail your application to:
USCIS Phoenix Lockbox
For U.S. Postal Service (USPS) deliveries:
USCIS
PO Box 21281
Phoenix, AZ 85036
For Express mail and courier deliveries:
USCIS
Attn: AOS
1820 E. Skyharbor Circle S
Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, or West Virginia
USCIS Dallas Lockbox
For U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Deliveries:
USCIS
PO Box 660867
Dallas, TX 75266
For Express mail and courier deliveries:
USCIS
Attn: AOS
2501 S. State Hwy. 121 Business
Suite 400
Lewisville, TX 75067
Yes, friend. My I-140 was approved from TSC and also my I-485 is pending at TSC and since 'm currently in Indiana, I had (reluctantly) mailed at Phoenix. Hoping for GC before EAD (wishful thinking). Amen !!
Dallas and Phoenix.
If you live in:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Guam, or the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.
Mail your application to:
USCIS Phoenix Lockbox
For U.S. Postal Service (USPS) deliveries:
USCIS
PO Box 21281
Phoenix, AZ 85036
For Express mail and courier deliveries:
USCIS
Attn: AOS
1820 E. Skyharbor Circle S
Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, or West Virginia
USCIS Dallas Lockbox
For U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Deliveries:
USCIS
PO Box 660867
Dallas, TX 75266
For Express mail and courier deliveries:
USCIS
Attn: AOS
2501 S. State Hwy. 121 Business
Suite 400
Lewisville, TX 75067
Yes, friend. My I-140 was approved from TSC and also my I-485 is pending at TSC and since 'm currently in Indiana, I had (reluctantly) mailed at Phoenix. Hoping for GC before EAD (wishful thinking). Amen !!
more...
makeup justin bieber purple supras.
aprajimmi
06-13 09:56 AM
Guys,Please do something for priority dates to be current.We are despirately waiting from 4years to file I-485...EAD...I-140 is approved long back.Atleast in this summer we are hoping......
girlfriend hot justin bieber purple high
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.
hairstyles There are high tops and then
beautifulMind
06-16 10:10 AM
Are you sure of this..This is very important for my wife. Her F1-OPT begins in October and I feel that the I-485 EAD may not come till then. She also has a job offer to start in october so we are thinking that it should be ok to start working on F1 OPT till we get our 485-EAD and eventually shift
puskeygadha
07-11 04:38 PM
I am in the same boat.
I think good idea will be to ask lawyer and seek opinion..
my fragomen lawyer said they do not have a clue on the timeline
I think good idea will be to ask lawyer and seek opinion..
my fragomen lawyer said they do not have a clue on the timeline
rajenk
07-15 01:53 PM
The porting of PD is during I-140 filing. So there isn't any day limits as to when you can join the new company. If you leave your current company the only thing that you can carry over is the PD from your approved I-140. So this is what you should do.
1. Join the new company (the client of your current company)
2. Have them file labor certification.
3. Once labor approved while filing new I-140 your attorney need to request port of PD from your previously approved I-140.
That is all it takes. This is a standard process.
Make sure to get a legible copy of the approved I-140, not the courtesy copy, you need the actual I-140 approval. On Courtesy copy they clearly say that, using that copy you cannot claim it as a proof of approval/any benefit out of that. So that is important.
Also get all your experience letters. The new attorney might ask for it at the stage of filing labor itself.
Hope this clears your hold up.
PM me if you need further clarification.
Good luck on your new job.
-Raj:)
1. Join the new company (the client of your current company)
2. Have them file labor certification.
3. Once labor approved while filing new I-140 your attorney need to request port of PD from your previously approved I-140.
That is all it takes. This is a standard process.
Make sure to get a legible copy of the approved I-140, not the courtesy copy, you need the actual I-140 approval. On Courtesy copy they clearly say that, using that copy you cannot claim it as a proof of approval/any benefit out of that. So that is important.
Also get all your experience letters. The new attorney might ask for it at the stage of filing labor itself.
Hope this clears your hold up.
PM me if you need further clarification.
Good luck on your new job.
-Raj:)
No comments:
Post a Comment