Humhongekamyab
01-29 10:23 AM
this rumour sounds like its straight out of timesofindia :p;)
:d
:d
wallpaper Brown Hair With Purple Streaks
kumar1
07-11 11:30 AM
Hey, with ALL EB numbers gone till October, what else USCIS employees are suppose to do? Poop, Pee and approve I-140! This way, make this freaking GC line even longer. When PERM came in the picture...everyone was so exited.... Fact of the matter is it does not matter if you get labor certification in 2 days and I-140 in 3 days. There are only 140,000 EB visas available. All we are doing here is making the line longer. One thing that has changed is.. every Tom Dick and Harry has an approved labor through PERM so they can extend their H1-B for ever technically. Earlier, when getting a lobor certification was time consuming, getting H1-B extended beyond 6 years are a real pain@neck. my 2 cents....
ashismaity
08-30 10:48 AM
I travelled outside USA before the expiry of VISA date while 7th yr H1b extension is going on based on my labor.
Here is the dates for clarity.
my visa date was upto Oct, 2005. Applied for H1b Extension in May, 2005. Travelled in June, 2005. came back in July 2005. Got approval for 7th yr. after a few days after my arival.
Here is the dates for clarity.
my visa date was upto Oct, 2005. Applied for H1b Extension in May, 2005. Travelled in June, 2005. came back in July 2005. Got approval for 7th yr. after a few days after my arival.
2011 rown hair with purple
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.
more...
.jpg "blonde hair with red lowlights")
pezz77
05-24 10:02 AM
Please go ahead with the filing especially when your employer is bearing the expenses.
Everything is in flux right now and even the bill is approved, It takes some time for the new system to get in place and you can preserve the Priority Date of the LC applied under the old system, if you need to reapply as per the new merit based point system.
Thanks for answering the question Sravani... that's all I was looking for: opinion on wether or not it was best to wait or not. Have a good one.
Everything is in flux right now and even the bill is approved, It takes some time for the new system to get in place and you can preserve the Priority Date of the LC applied under the old system, if you need to reapply as per the new merit based point system.
Thanks for answering the question Sravani... that's all I was looking for: opinion on wether or not it was best to wait or not. Have a good one.
kaisersose
04-28 04:22 PM
Hello,
I have been on H1 for last 3 years and had applied for 485 last july as dependant for my spouse's AOS. My spouse is primary applicant for 485. I have my EAD also. I am worried that I may get RFE if I file for an H1 extension. If I am not able to respond to RFE and my H1 extension gets denied will this affect my I-485 in anyway. I am wondering whether or not to apply for H1 extension and just use my EAD.
This is how I see it.
What you should really consider is to see if there are possible reasons for your spouse's 485 to get rejected.
If you cannot find any, then simply switch to EAD.
I have been on H1 for last 3 years and had applied for 485 last july as dependant for my spouse's AOS. My spouse is primary applicant for 485. I have my EAD also. I am worried that I may get RFE if I file for an H1 extension. If I am not able to respond to RFE and my H1 extension gets denied will this affect my I-485 in anyway. I am wondering whether or not to apply for H1 extension and just use my EAD.
This is how I see it.
What you should really consider is to see if there are possible reasons for your spouse's 485 to get rejected.
If you cannot find any, then simply switch to EAD.
more...
eb3_nepa
11-06 04:49 PM
It doesnt matter whether the clients of the employer are for-profit or not (obviously). The only thing relevant is whether or not the organization for which your wife will work is classified as not-for-profit.
What if the organization qualifies as a "medical" related organization. Dealing Solely with hospitals etc?
What if the organization qualifies as a "medical" related organization. Dealing Solely with hospitals etc?
2010 100% Human Hair Clip On In
rheoretro
08-08 07:33 PM
...of meaningless "predictions."
more...
eb3_nepa
07-20 04:50 PM
But my question is can you have BOTH of them. Some say you can have 2 H1s at the same time for different companies, so hence my question was, can you have an H1 and an L1 at the same time.
Biju, whom did you ask, an immigration attorney or just on forums?
Biju, whom did you ask, an immigration attorney or just on forums?
hair 0831-kary-perry-hair-streaks-
jsb
01-21 09:07 AM
hi dionysus
i got this from some requirement agencies
If it really has some source of information (and is not a pure rumour), then it may come out as some kind of order that PD cutoff dates can only be moved forward (i.e. no retrogression). We all know, moving dates like a yoyo does not make any sense. It only tells that decision makers over there just don't know what they are doing. This order might force them to think and work before issuing new cutoff dates.
i got this from some requirement agencies
If it really has some source of information (and is not a pure rumour), then it may come out as some kind of order that PD cutoff dates can only be moved forward (i.e. no retrogression). We all know, moving dates like a yoyo does not make any sense. It only tells that decision makers over there just don't know what they are doing. This order might force them to think and work before issuing new cutoff dates.
more...
rangaswamy
10-18 12:32 PM
Im just wondering.. my check has not been cashed. i was sent more than a month ago.
My check to IV that is, NOT USCIS
Can i start a new thread for that :)
My check to IV that is, NOT USCIS
Can i start a new thread for that :)
hot blonde hair with red lowlights
wandmaker
07-12 08:41 PM
Most people think law suit is a bad thing, but that is not right. In a democratic country law suit is the right way to deal with things. We are legal immigrants, we have all the rights to file a law suit, but with full support of IV.
People have already filed a law suit on the same day the President signed the bill! (yesterday, the wire tapping bill...)
By filing a law suit, all we are trying to do is to fix the laws which are not working. Basically, we are doing the right thing. Not only us, but future Legal immigrants will be benefitted, they don't have to go thru what we had to...
Here are the things that needs to be fixed...
1. Country quota
2. Recapturing visas.
3. 3 year EAD/AP
4. End the endless wait ( Proposing a new law )
5. Remove the same/similar confusion in AC21
What is "End the endless wait" ?
EAD is a very good example, If 90 days have passed after filing EAD, you have the option to go to a local USCIS office and get a temp one. We should have a similar option for all the peper work. For example, each and every stage in green card process should have a a day count for processing. Like name check should be completed in 180 days.
Basically, when we receive any receipt notice, it should have a statement which reads "We have received your application and we will take action within 180 days. If we fail to act by MM-DD-YYYY, Please go to the nearest USCIS for approval.."
Sounds little ambitious ?? well, we are not asking for too much, just a day count. Lets say if the whole Green card process takes 3 years or 10 years based on the day count for each stage, people can decide whether they want to immigrate to USA with a clear idea that it will take x days to become a permanent resident ( like how it works in all other countries except USA)
Even a person jailed gets to know how long he is going to spend his time behind bars, but we do not know when we will be free from this immigration mess!
__________________
Attended the DC Rally
Contribution: $150
Sent letters to President/IV
Status : I-485 pending, PD Feb 2005, EB3 - India
We have been running a funding drive for months with the target of 50K and it is sad to say we are not even half way through. I see only 200+ members contributing to funding drive. To execute any idea, you need money - especially law suit requires lot of money :) IMHO, all should make IV financially sound, if the immigration community to see some fruits
People have already filed a law suit on the same day the President signed the bill! (yesterday, the wire tapping bill...)
By filing a law suit, all we are trying to do is to fix the laws which are not working. Basically, we are doing the right thing. Not only us, but future Legal immigrants will be benefitted, they don't have to go thru what we had to...
Here are the things that needs to be fixed...
1. Country quota
2. Recapturing visas.
3. 3 year EAD/AP
4. End the endless wait ( Proposing a new law )
5. Remove the same/similar confusion in AC21
What is "End the endless wait" ?
EAD is a very good example, If 90 days have passed after filing EAD, you have the option to go to a local USCIS office and get a temp one. We should have a similar option for all the peper work. For example, each and every stage in green card process should have a a day count for processing. Like name check should be completed in 180 days.
Basically, when we receive any receipt notice, it should have a statement which reads "We have received your application and we will take action within 180 days. If we fail to act by MM-DD-YYYY, Please go to the nearest USCIS for approval.."
Sounds little ambitious ?? well, we are not asking for too much, just a day count. Lets say if the whole Green card process takes 3 years or 10 years based on the day count for each stage, people can decide whether they want to immigrate to USA with a clear idea that it will take x days to become a permanent resident ( like how it works in all other countries except USA)
Even a person jailed gets to know how long he is going to spend his time behind bars, but we do not know when we will be free from this immigration mess!
__________________
Attended the DC Rally
Contribution: $150
Sent letters to President/IV
Status : I-485 pending, PD Feb 2005, EB3 - India
We have been running a funding drive for months with the target of 50K and it is sad to say we are not even half way through. I see only 200+ members contributing to funding drive. To execute any idea, you need money - especially law suit requires lot of money :) IMHO, all should make IV financially sound, if the immigration community to see some fruits
more...
house Blue pink and purple hair is a
harrydr
08-03 09:36 AM
Hello IV friends,
My PD is May 2008 and currently i have an approved i-140. I have been wanting to change my job but always been scared of the impact on my GC processing as i heard if i change my job prior to filing for I-485 (which i cannot as the PD is not current), i would have start the process all over again. What are my options here? Thanks in advance.
My PD is May 2008 and currently i have an approved i-140. I have been wanting to change my job but always been scared of the impact on my GC processing as i heard if i change my job prior to filing for I-485 (which i cannot as the PD is not current), i would have start the process all over again. What are my options here? Thanks in advance.
tattoo new hair color
acecupid
06-26 10:01 AM
I jst got an update on my and my wife I-485; i am not sure what it is about as i have not received the RFE yet.....but i think they are asking for our BC as we did not provide them when we applied for I-485;
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
My dear friend from Pakistan,
why were you waiting for so long since you applied for I-485 to arrange for birth certificate ? Now you have to scramble due to the RFE end date. Anyways, here is the solution. You can provide 2 affidavits from your parents for each of you (i.e. you and wife) and also a birth certificate from pakistani consulate in US. I am not sure if the pakistani consulate issues birth certificates, but you can try. Keep in mind that the BC issued by the consulate is not sufficient by itself. You can just provide that as secondary/additional proof. You will still need the affidavits. Below is a format for father's affidavit. You can use similar wording for mother. I hope that helps you... Good luck!
================================================== ====
I, <fathers name>, aged XXyears, son of <grandfathers name>, residing at <address> do hereby state that the following is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge:
1. I am a citizen of <country>
2. I am the father of <your name>
3. I was born on <birthdate> in <location>
4. I was living in <your birth place> in <month and year of your birth>
5. I personally know that <your name> was born on <birth date> in <location, state, country> at <hospital name> from the valid wedlock of me and my wife <mothers name> and I know the fact of his birth because of my relationship to him.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
My dear friend from Pakistan,
why were you waiting for so long since you applied for I-485 to arrange for birth certificate ? Now you have to scramble due to the RFE end date. Anyways, here is the solution. You can provide 2 affidavits from your parents for each of you (i.e. you and wife) and also a birth certificate from pakistani consulate in US. I am not sure if the pakistani consulate issues birth certificates, but you can try. Keep in mind that the BC issued by the consulate is not sufficient by itself. You can just provide that as secondary/additional proof. You will still need the affidavits. Below is a format for father's affidavit. You can use similar wording for mother. I hope that helps you... Good luck!
================================================== ====
I, <fathers name>, aged XXyears, son of <grandfathers name>, residing at <address> do hereby state that the following is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge:
1. I am a citizen of <country>
2. I am the father of <your name>
3. I was born on <birthdate> in <location>
4. I was living in <your birth place> in <month and year of your birth>
5. I personally know that <your name> was born on <birth date> in <location, state, country> at <hospital name> from the valid wedlock of me and my wife <mothers name> and I know the fact of his birth because of my relationship to him.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
more...
pictures rown hair with purple streaks
sr77
09-26 02:08 PM
I think you are already late. You should have done all you can, like meeting the senator, writing to uscis, infopass appt, as soon as you PD was current. Now the Visa numbers are over for the FY 2010. You may get lucky in October when new visa number are available. Hope this helps.
This is disheartening...
This is disheartening...
dresses rown hair with purple
gc_check
08-30 10:09 AM
for gg_ny
this is extension of H1B based of aproved I140 .
if i understood correctly the application for H1 extension will became null and void if i travel outside of US .
this is very interesting. I was not aware about this .
Anyway, thank you for your valuable input
I've also applied for the H1B extension(3yr Extn based on approved I-140) and was told NOT to travel while the case is still pending approval by my company Legal Dept/Attorney. So I requested to do it on premuim processing as there is a business necessity to do so. If there is a business need for you to travel, then your company should be willing to use Premium Processing. It costs $1000 more to the company to request Premuim Processing.
this is extension of H1B based of aproved I140 .
if i understood correctly the application for H1 extension will became null and void if i travel outside of US .
this is very interesting. I was not aware about this .
Anyway, thank you for your valuable input
I've also applied for the H1B extension(3yr Extn based on approved I-140) and was told NOT to travel while the case is still pending approval by my company Legal Dept/Attorney. So I requested to do it on premuim processing as there is a business necessity to do so. If there is a business need for you to travel, then your company should be willing to use Premium Processing. It costs $1000 more to the company to request Premuim Processing.
more...
makeup With electric blue and purple
capriol
07-06 02:32 PM
you should be fine. do you have a valid transit visa? i think you need to have one if you are travelling through the European Union.
Dear friends,
I received all the three responses to my queries on AP travel. All three of you have confirmed the same. Thanks a lot, I feel a lot better now. Although, as one of you mentioned about a transit visa through the EU, I will be waiting within the Amsterdam airport for 3 hours to take the connecting U.S flight, and so I don't think I need a transit visa. Thanks a lot.
Dear friends,
I received all the three responses to my queries on AP travel. All three of you have confirmed the same. Thanks a lot, I feel a lot better now. Although, as one of you mentioned about a transit visa through the EU, I will be waiting within the Amsterdam airport for 3 hours to take the connecting U.S flight, and so I don't think I need a transit visa. Thanks a lot.
girlfriend rown hair with purple
ksairi
08-17 08:47 AM
Please
hairstyles purple streaks in my hair
myeb2gc
04-27 10:03 AM
Hi Ram,
My employer company is smaller one, 15 only.
And no marketing, but he is good giving me incentives.
I am planning to go with bigger consulting firm so that they can market me well and .....
So i am thinking of change of employer.
So are my earlier 3 questions.
My employer company is smaller one, 15 only.
And no marketing, but he is good giving me incentives.
I am planning to go with bigger consulting firm so that they can market me well and .....
So i am thinking of change of employer.
So are my earlier 3 questions.
485Mbe4001
11-14 06:48 PM
ask him to fax you the copy of the letter he got from BEC, something is not right here. Show it to another lawyer. Looks like he made a mistake when he filed for your labor.
My RIR is rejected. My LC is still pending.
My lawyer says it is moved to TR queue
If My case is moved to TR queue, does it mean very significant delay in getting my LC? Because in such a case this is my breaking point.Ready to quit and give up after these years and years if pain
My RIR is rejected. My LC is still pending.
My lawyer says it is moved to TR queue
If My case is moved to TR queue, does it mean very significant delay in getting my LC? Because in such a case this is my breaking point.Ready to quit and give up after these years and years if pain
EB3June03
06-25 06:47 PM
So after going through the medical and knowing that i will have a positive PPD (due to my history of positive PPD), and having clear X Ray results - the civil surgeon said you need to treatment for TB. I was surprised to hear it and as I had read from the CDC website and read the instructions - I saw the Treatment is Recommended - NOT Required and it also mentioned that the doctor should sign Part 5 and the applicant is clear for USCIS purposes and explain to the applicant the implications and recommend going for Evaluation to the health department.
I showed the points to the doctor but he did NOT want to sign it without any entry in the part 3 and part 4 - which from what i read is for those that are going to REQUIRE treatment.
Reference :- 2008 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons | CDC DGMQ (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/civil_tb_ti_2008.htm)
View Page 6 of FAQ booklet: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/pdf/civil_surgeons_faq.pdf
17. Should Part 3 of Form I-693 be completed when the civil surgeon is referring the applicant for evaluation for treatment of Latent TB Infection (LTBI)?
The 2008 TB TIs recommend that civil surgeons refer applicants with “Class B—Latent TB Infection Needing Evaluation for Treatment (LTBI)” to the TB Control Program of the local health department. The referral for evaluation for treatment of LTBI is recommended, not required. Part 3 of Form I-693 should be used only for required referrals, therefore the civil surgeon should not complete Part 3 of Form I-693 when making this referral. It follows that the health department is not required to complete Part 4 of Form I-693 after evaluation for treatment of LTBI is completed or after treatment for LTBI is completed. Please see question 18 for related information
Did any of you folks run into similar situation?
I showed the points to the doctor but he did NOT want to sign it without any entry in the part 3 and part 4 - which from what i read is for those that are going to REQUIRE treatment.
Reference :- 2008 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons | CDC DGMQ (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/civil_tb_ti_2008.htm)
View Page 6 of FAQ booklet: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/pdf/civil_surgeons_faq.pdf
17. Should Part 3 of Form I-693 be completed when the civil surgeon is referring the applicant for evaluation for treatment of Latent TB Infection (LTBI)?
The 2008 TB TIs recommend that civil surgeons refer applicants with “Class B—Latent TB Infection Needing Evaluation for Treatment (LTBI)” to the TB Control Program of the local health department. The referral for evaluation for treatment of LTBI is recommended, not required. Part 3 of Form I-693 should be used only for required referrals, therefore the civil surgeon should not complete Part 3 of Form I-693 when making this referral. It follows that the health department is not required to complete Part 4 of Form I-693 after evaluation for treatment of LTBI is completed or after treatment for LTBI is completed. Please see question 18 for related information
Did any of you folks run into similar situation?
No comments:
Post a Comment