jliechty
April 3rd, 2005, 08:51 PM
You can do a lot in this instance with a single well-exposed (highlights to the right, but not blown out) RAW file from a low-noise camera (e.g. anything but my D1). ;)
What you must do is to go through the RAW conversion process twice, making two files: one with the highlights placed where you want them (don't worry about the shadows), and another with the shadows brought up to the level that you'd like (the highlights will be blown out in this image). Now, stack the two in one image as two layers, and use a layer mask on the upper image to "paint" where the bottom one should show through.
This is explained in a tutorial (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml) over at the Luminous Landscape. Given that he was using film when he wrote that, he included a bit on aligning the two images, which you won't need to worry about because both of your images came from the same photo. If you have any more questions, I'd be glad to help, or I'm sure one of our other members who's forgotten more about Photoshop than I'll ever know could help you even better. :)
Edit: $#%^, Gary beat me to it with the LL tutorial. Nevertheless, double RAW conversion works well [not quite, but good enough if you can't go back to do it again] with the same method outlined therein.
What you must do is to go through the RAW conversion process twice, making two files: one with the highlights placed where you want them (don't worry about the shadows), and another with the shadows brought up to the level that you'd like (the highlights will be blown out in this image). Now, stack the two in one image as two layers, and use a layer mask on the upper image to "paint" where the bottom one should show through.
This is explained in a tutorial (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml) over at the Luminous Landscape. Given that he was using film when he wrote that, he included a bit on aligning the two images, which you won't need to worry about because both of your images came from the same photo. If you have any more questions, I'd be glad to help, or I'm sure one of our other members who's forgotten more about Photoshop than I'll ever know could help you even better. :)
Edit: $#%^, Gary beat me to it with the LL tutorial. Nevertheless, double RAW conversion works well [not quite, but good enough if you can't go back to do it again] with the same method outlined therein.
morchu
05-21 12:39 AM
I believe he just meant to say "not possible with one 140".
He just mentioned it in a confusing way.
"A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. 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."
The petition mentioned here is an I140 for EB1/EB2/EB3.
So it doesn't hurt to have more I140s approved. Whenever you do a "subsequent" petition, you just claim the earliest priority date (of the already approved ones).
I understand two I-140s, one existing (EB-3) and second new I-140 (EB2), but you have also mentioned more. Why need more than two, in what circumstances?
He just mentioned it in a confusing way.
"A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. 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."
The petition mentioned here is an I140 for EB1/EB2/EB3.
So it doesn't hurt to have more I140s approved. Whenever you do a "subsequent" petition, you just claim the earliest priority date (of the already approved ones).
I understand two I-140s, one existing (EB-3) and second new I-140 (EB2), but you have also mentioned more. Why need more than two, in what circumstances?
SDdesi
08-29 05:01 PM
This includes 2nd July 2007 received date.....
Its very ambiguous.....on one hand they say:The processing dates shown below represent the receipt dates of petitions and applications currently being processed by the USCIS field office
and then they also say: If the receipt date shown on your receipt notice is prior to the processing date shown below, you may call USCIS Customer Service at 1-800-375-5283
So we cannot call the USCIS even if the RD is July 2. :confused::confused::confused:
Its very ambiguous.....on one hand they say:The processing dates shown below represent the receipt dates of petitions and applications currently being processed by the USCIS field office
and then they also say: If the receipt date shown on your receipt notice is prior to the processing date shown below, you may call USCIS Customer Service at 1-800-375-5283
So we cannot call the USCIS even if the RD is July 2. :confused::confused::confused:
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
anilkumar0902
09-18 12:06 PM
EB-2 , PD: Oct 2005, Filed at Nebraska, I-485 Received Date: 07/31/07, Notice Date: 09/05/07. Section: Unknown for me and my wife.
Last week, called up USCIS and mentioned about my case. The person who took the call, said nothing can be done and that i need to wait for the application to be processed.
I called up today again and spoke with a different lady and she patiently listened to the details and placed a Service Request to USCIS about the details. She wanted me to call back in 45 days if nobody contacts me about the same.
But, looks like many folks who applied in NSC, are facing this issue of "Section: Unknown"...Not sure, if we need to be worried or not. But hope everything works out well at the end.
Last week, called up USCIS and mentioned about my case. The person who took the call, said nothing can be done and that i need to wait for the application to be processed.
I called up today again and spoke with a different lady and she patiently listened to the details and placed a Service Request to USCIS about the details. She wanted me to call back in 45 days if nobody contacts me about the same.
But, looks like many folks who applied in NSC, are facing this issue of "Section: Unknown"...Not sure, if we need to be worried or not. But hope everything works out well at the end.
skark
08-22 11:04 AM
All the people that got the EAD approval have their pending I485 in the same service center where they applied for EAD renewal...does this have anything to do with their fast approvals?
This is so depressing!
:(
I applied for EAD renewal at TSC on June 24 with a pending EB3 I485 pending at NSC. I still have not got an approval for EAD renewal!
Is anyone else in the same boat got their EAD approved?
Did I send my application to the wrong service center, I live in North Carolina?
I know several other people that got their EAD renewal application approved at TSC and these people applied about a month later than me!!!
Please advise :confused:
This is so depressing!
:(
I applied for EAD renewal at TSC on June 24 with a pending EB3 I485 pending at NSC. I still have not got an approval for EAD renewal!
Is anyone else in the same boat got their EAD approved?
Did I send my application to the wrong service center, I live in North Carolina?
I know several other people that got their EAD renewal application approved at TSC and these people applied about a month later than me!!!
Please advise :confused:
more...
roseball
05-02 02:09 PM
It shouldn't be a problem if you get into a financially sound company and hire a good attorney...PERM and I-140 shouldn't take more than 6 months if you hire a good attorney.....
maine_gc
04-21 08:51 AM
I recently renewed our passports at Indian Embassy, Washington D.C . I sent 2"X2" size photographs and there was no problem in passport renewal.
How long did it take for you to renew the passport. My appointment date is on Apr 03 and they received my documents on March 31st. I did not get the passport yet. Do you have a number to call them. I called all the numbers listed on the website and no one answers.
How long did it take for you to renew the passport. My appointment date is on Apr 03 and they received my documents on March 31st. I did not get the passport yet. Do you have a number to call them. I called all the numbers listed on the website and no one answers.
more...
aries
07-18 10:48 PM
Do you have a sample cover letter that you can share for self filing of EAD/AP and to what address the application should be posted. Thanks for the response..
Here is:
e-file 765(180 $)
Send copy of 485 along with printout of receipt
Wait for FP appointment
Done(got cards 40 days later)
I already did it for wife, son and myself.
Saved about 1500$
Here is:
e-file 765(180 $)
Send copy of 485 along with printout of receipt
Wait for FP appointment
Done(got cards 40 days later)
I already did it for wife, son and myself.
Saved about 1500$
prem_goel
12-03 10:24 PM
I have...
Frist stamp from INDIA (home country),
2 Visa Stamps from Washington DC
Last stamping from Matamoros (Mexico)
Am i ELIGIBLE to get H1 visa stamp from Tijuana next year?
YEs, but I am not a lawyer. Secondly you should refer to the US Consulate at Tijuana's website for the latest rules. I believe as of now, you are since you have 1 stamping from your home country.
I met one guy during my stamping who had the same situation and he got approved. You have to show them the india stamping though, else they might get confused seeing your other stampings. Initially they said to him he was not eligible, but when he showed them his first India stamping they let him in.
Frist stamp from INDIA (home country),
2 Visa Stamps from Washington DC
Last stamping from Matamoros (Mexico)
Am i ELIGIBLE to get H1 visa stamp from Tijuana next year?
YEs, but I am not a lawyer. Secondly you should refer to the US Consulate at Tijuana's website for the latest rules. I believe as of now, you are since you have 1 stamping from your home country.
I met one guy during my stamping who had the same situation and he got approved. You have to show them the india stamping though, else they might get confused seeing your other stampings. Initially they said to him he was not eligible, but when he showed them his first India stamping they let him in.
more...
ivy55
08-19 09:52 AM
I got my first FP on July 31 2008- code 2 after waiting one year. Then on Aug 16, I got another FP for Code 1. no LUD yet
Thanks
Thanks
reddog
11-03 10:43 AM
I would be very cautious about her overstayin without getting the extension in hand.
I would still not do it unless it is a desperate situation, and there is absolutely no other way of handling it.
The overstay would definitely show up the next time she comes back in, ie, next time if the officer is good, he lets her in and everything is good.
If the officer is just doing his duty, he will not.
The officer will definitely grill her about her overstay, and if she is able to convince him about the hospital stay(i would keep records of the hospital stay), he can give her a short term visa.
And your mom-in-law mentioning the baby when she entered does not help at all.
Overstay is still handled in an adhoc fashion at the airport counters.
But I know of a friends mother who overstayed(did not apply extension) and was sent back from the airport next time she tried to come back(they even got a letter from the local congressman).
I would still not do it unless it is a desperate situation, and there is absolutely no other way of handling it.
The overstay would definitely show up the next time she comes back in, ie, next time if the officer is good, he lets her in and everything is good.
If the officer is just doing his duty, he will not.
The officer will definitely grill her about her overstay, and if she is able to convince him about the hospital stay(i would keep records of the hospital stay), he can give her a short term visa.
And your mom-in-law mentioning the baby when she entered does not help at all.
Overstay is still handled in an adhoc fashion at the airport counters.
But I know of a friends mother who overstayed(did not apply extension) and was sent back from the airport next time she tried to come back(they even got a letter from the local congressman).
more...
yagw
11-02 01:48 PM
There are no plans for extended vacation.
I thought the 3 year h1b extension after 140 approval is a one time deal and there would be no further extensions :confused: .
I am not aware of the 12yr lifetime H1B limit. Can some one shed some light on this?
There is no lifetime cap on H1B. Also, there is no limit on how many 3 year terms you can extend it after I-140 approval. What would happen is, after the initial 3 years, your PD might become current and that will make you in-eligible for 3 years ext. (and just one year).
DISCLAIMER: I am not an Attorney and this is not a legal advice
I thought the 3 year h1b extension after 140 approval is a one time deal and there would be no further extensions :confused: .
I am not aware of the 12yr lifetime H1B limit. Can some one shed some light on this?
There is no lifetime cap on H1B. Also, there is no limit on how many 3 year terms you can extend it after I-140 approval. What would happen is, after the initial 3 years, your PD might become current and that will make you in-eligible for 3 years ext. (and just one year).
DISCLAIMER: I am not an Attorney and this is not a legal advice
sri1309
11-03 07:33 PM
short answer Nope
a) because immigration is not high on Obama's agenda.
b) the economic downturn will be used by the the anti's to thwart any measure to help us
c) We are still very low on everyone's plate, democrats will want to get the illegals and all will use us as a pawn.
d) The trend is that the right will become hard right and left will become hard left...wait and watch.
the guys who will post bad comments, please remember that i had posted something similar when the democrats got majority and we have multiple threads singing the lords praise and showering flowers. It will be politics as usual.
We need lots of active members to make ONE strong case and keep hammering away at the lawmakers, instead we get a daily dose of self motivated threads which divide the already small group into smaller groups ((petitions, cases, class actions, EB3 Vs EB2, masters Vs 'grand'Masters etc:rolleyes:) .
Imagine you are one of the candidates. Will you raise it. We must make them realize this is important,once they get elected.
This cannot be an issue to be raised by any candidate thats more focussed only on economy. Immigrants arent playing any +ve or -ve role here. So why will their issues be part of election campaign.
Again, please congratulate the new president, and do let them know our pain..Tell them we need some dynamic leadership and quicker action.
a) because immigration is not high on Obama's agenda.
b) the economic downturn will be used by the the anti's to thwart any measure to help us
c) We are still very low on everyone's plate, democrats will want to get the illegals and all will use us as a pawn.
d) The trend is that the right will become hard right and left will become hard left...wait and watch.
the guys who will post bad comments, please remember that i had posted something similar when the democrats got majority and we have multiple threads singing the lords praise and showering flowers. It will be politics as usual.
We need lots of active members to make ONE strong case and keep hammering away at the lawmakers, instead we get a daily dose of self motivated threads which divide the already small group into smaller groups ((petitions, cases, class actions, EB3 Vs EB2, masters Vs 'grand'Masters etc:rolleyes:) .
Imagine you are one of the candidates. Will you raise it. We must make them realize this is important,once they get elected.
This cannot be an issue to be raised by any candidate thats more focussed only on economy. Immigrants arent playing any +ve or -ve role here. So why will their issues be part of election campaign.
Again, please congratulate the new president, and do let them know our pain..Tell them we need some dynamic leadership and quicker action.
more...
srinivas_o
01-08 10:16 AM
Hello Gurus,
I am planning to travel to India in March. I am not with my GC sponsored employer and joined a new employer on EAD. I have an approved Advance Parole and so my wife.
My question is, what are the documents we need to carry in this situation? As per my knowledge, copy of I-485 receipts, approved AP documents and EAD. Do we need to carry any other
documents like letter from my present employer, pay stubs, W2s etc???? Please let me know.
Thanks.
Srinivas
I am planning to travel to India in March. I am not with my GC sponsored employer and joined a new employer on EAD. I have an approved Advance Parole and so my wife.
My question is, what are the documents we need to carry in this situation? As per my knowledge, copy of I-485 receipts, approved AP documents and EAD. Do we need to carry any other
documents like letter from my present employer, pay stubs, W2s etc???? Please let me know.
Thanks.
Srinivas
LOL123
02-14 08:55 AM
Thank You All for the suggestions.
more...
lazycis
11-30 11:54 AM
It usually takes a long time for them to fix their own mistakes. So do not lose sleep over it. Write to the director of the service center. If that does not help, complain to CIS Ombudsman
vegasbaby
06-10 09:50 AM
Hello All,
I was reading at some of the posts in this forum and they seem to have been quiet helpful.
My company has decided to go ahead with my GC process.
Its in the very early stage, but my immigration specialist gave me a heads up regarding something.
She said, that as I have a 3 yrs BE degree the USCIS may not recognize me under EB2 category :confused: So I explained her the education system in India, but she said that it depends upon the Credential Evaluation Agency which will process my educational qualification and prepare a report and submit it to USCIS.
Following this USCIS will make a decision whether to grant EB2 or EB3 category.
I am sure many of the members may have faced a similar Dilemma....Is there any specific solution to this?
To be precise I completed my Diploma from Mumbai & Degree from Pune University, followed by MS in US and currently working on H1B.
Please Advice.
Thanks,
Shakti
I have a 3 yrs Diploma from BTE - Mumbai & 3 years B.E. from Univ of Mumbai. In Mumbai, you can do 10 + 3yr Dip + 3yr BE OR you can do 12 + 4yr BE. Eventually 16 yrs of education is more important + there is no difference between the degree awarded to you & someone who does a 4 yrs degree.
I have EB3 pending & have currently labor done under EB2 with no issues.
I was reading at some of the posts in this forum and they seem to have been quiet helpful.
My company has decided to go ahead with my GC process.
Its in the very early stage, but my immigration specialist gave me a heads up regarding something.
She said, that as I have a 3 yrs BE degree the USCIS may not recognize me under EB2 category :confused: So I explained her the education system in India, but she said that it depends upon the Credential Evaluation Agency which will process my educational qualification and prepare a report and submit it to USCIS.
Following this USCIS will make a decision whether to grant EB2 or EB3 category.
I am sure many of the members may have faced a similar Dilemma....Is there any specific solution to this?
To be precise I completed my Diploma from Mumbai & Degree from Pune University, followed by MS in US and currently working on H1B.
Please Advice.
Thanks,
Shakti
I have a 3 yrs Diploma from BTE - Mumbai & 3 years B.E. from Univ of Mumbai. In Mumbai, you can do 10 + 3yr Dip + 3yr BE OR you can do 12 + 4yr BE. Eventually 16 yrs of education is more important + there is no difference between the degree awarded to you & someone who does a 4 yrs degree.
I have EB3 pending & have currently labor done under EB2 with no issues.
waitnwatch
05-17 11:14 PM
.......
Bottom line US Masters and above still need LC, Only thing is they are not counted against Quota....which is the biggest releif ever...
I think you are slightly off again. This clause pertains only to labor certification and has no relation to quotas as I understand. Remember that there is no such thing as an LC quota. So you still wait in line... Only gain is that the bar for labor is slightly lower because the employer has to show that they hired the best guy for the job as opposed to showing that no minimally qualified American citizen was available. ;)
Bottom line US Masters and above still need LC, Only thing is they are not counted against Quota....which is the biggest releif ever...
I think you are slightly off again. This clause pertains only to labor certification and has no relation to quotas as I understand. Remember that there is no such thing as an LC quota. So you still wait in line... Only gain is that the bar for labor is slightly lower because the employer has to show that they hired the best guy for the job as opposed to showing that no minimally qualified American citizen was available. ;)
a_yaja
04-02 08:33 AM
Thank you guys for helping me.
Could you tell me please if it's ok to write where it's written "purpose of trip"........that I want to travel to visit my parents......is it ok with Uscis if I write that? Or what else should I write.
Thanks again!
On a separate piece of paper, this is exactly what I entered:
"Pending adjustment of status petition. Lengthy adjustment and the need to visit family from time to time."
I self filed for AP for my spouse and myself and we got it approved without any problem.
Could you tell me please if it's ok to write where it's written "purpose of trip"........that I want to travel to visit my parents......is it ok with Uscis if I write that? Or what else should I write.
Thanks again!
On a separate piece of paper, this is exactly what I entered:
"Pending adjustment of status petition. Lengthy adjustment and the need to visit family from time to time."
I self filed for AP for my spouse and myself and we got it approved without any problem.
dba9ioracle
09-15 03:10 PM
Nice idea.. I am for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment