Can2004
08-03 10:19 AM
How often is finger printing required/asked for during the 485 process.
Thanks
Thanks
wallpaper Chicago Cubs 11 Wallpaper
rheoretro
09-24 09:33 PM
Dear Core Team and other Members,
Rajiv Chandrasekaran is an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, where he has worked since 1994. He lives in Washington, D.C.
He had published an article on the Sept 17 Washington Post Main Page.He is a well known reporter in DC area. I think he is originally from India. If you search his name in google ,you will get lot of hits !...
You may have googled Rajiv Chandrasekaran, but did you find any articles that he has written on immigration? If so, please share with us...were you aware that there is another journalist from the Washington Post who has done a stellar job of covering legal immigration? Her name is S. Mitra Kalita...please google her too.
BTW, why just google journalists who are of Indian heritage? I hope this is not an Indo-centric organization...also Rajiv Chandrasekaran is not originally from India, his parents are. I hope that distinction is not lost!
Rajiv Chandrasekaran is an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, where he has worked since 1994. He lives in Washington, D.C.
He had published an article on the Sept 17 Washington Post Main Page.He is a well known reporter in DC area. I think he is originally from India. If you search his name in google ,you will get lot of hits !...
You may have googled Rajiv Chandrasekaran, but did you find any articles that he has written on immigration? If so, please share with us...were you aware that there is another journalist from the Washington Post who has done a stellar job of covering legal immigration? Her name is S. Mitra Kalita...please google her too.
BTW, why just google journalists who are of Indian heritage? I hope this is not an Indo-centric organization...also Rajiv Chandrasekaran is not originally from India, his parents are. I hope that distinction is not lost!
waitingnwaiting
11-16 12:20 PM
Report indicates that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) will meet with President Barack Obama this afternoon to talk about the chances of getting comprehensive immigration reform or the DREAM Act passed in the lame duck session, signaling the Democrats, Hispanics, and Obama turning their posture in CIR or DREAM from "defensive" to "offensive" strategy, by going forward with the all-court pressing DREAM or CIR during the Lame Duck session. For this apparent strategy, time is indeed short and running out. There was also report that the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could bring the DREAM Act to the floor as early as this week. This strategy will push and corner Republicans to the "defensive" position in connection with the 2012 Presidential and another national election. For this matter, the Democrats have nothing to lose by pushing for DREAM or CIR during this Lame Duck session while they are in a majority position. Failure to pass the DREAM Act during the Lame Duck session will be placed on the Republicans, which are likely to bring about some Republican casualties and political liabilities in 2012 election. From the perspecitives of the DREAM activists, this is indeed considered a last chance and they are taking an aggressive position to take advantage of such political strategy of the Democrats. Let's watch how this political drama will unfold during the next one month or so. ww.immigration-law.com
2011 Chicago Cubs Wallpapers
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
more...
GC4US
08-29 12:10 PM
When were your applications filed? If it was before July 30, your I-485 could be filed at either Nebraska or Texas.
Thank you nefrateedi,
My concurrent filing of I-140 and 485 was filed on August 17th, 2007.
Is it not after July 30?...that you could submit to either to Nebraska or Texas?
Is it ok like this?
Thank you again.
Thank you nefrateedi,
My concurrent filing of I-140 and 485 was filed on August 17th, 2007.
Is it not after July 30?...that you could submit to either to Nebraska or Texas?
Is it ok like this?
Thank you again.
shahzaib616
05-17 06:41 PM
I have posted this in another thread within this forum, however because of the numerous amount of questions and answers posted on that thread, I fear that my post will be overlooked or unconsidered. Thus, I have reposted it as its own thread.
Moderators, if I have done something in violation of the forum rules by posting the same post on two threads, please do not hesitate to remove the thread. It was not my intent to violate any forum rules.
For everyone else, please read below for my story/question.
"Before I begin with my question, allow me to give you a brief overview of my case:
In the year 2000, I initially filed for Labor Certification.
In 2004, I received approval of my application for Employment Authorization (I-765).
In 2005, I was sent a letter from the USCIS indicating that my application was rejected because I failed to file my case prior to a certain date issued by the USCIS.
Pretty straightforward, right? Wrong. You see, in the last letter I was sent by the USCIS it states that I failed to file my case promptly enough; I filed my case nearly a year before the deadline was set!
My lawyers and I have attempted to appeal the decision, however our attempt has been futile: our request for appeal has been denied.
I am unsure of what to do now... It is apparent that the USCIS messed up, but I cannot think of any way to reopen my case and prove it. My attorney has presented me with two options - in mid-June he will engage in a conference call with a senior individual at the Immigration Office, at which time he will present cases (including mine) which have been wrongfully denied; my second option is to sue the United States.
I am very unsure of what course of action to pursue now! My lawyer has kept my waiting all this time with stalls and meetings which he has stated will help my case, however with each passing meeting, it simply seems like he is giving me false hope... I really do not want to have to wait until mid-June, only to find out that I must wait even longer before my case is reopened.
Additionally, I am highly reluctant to sue the United States of America for messing up in the processing of my case. The judge presiding over my case will be a United States citizen - it would be like telling a child to kill his/her parent... it simply cannot happen! If I were to sue the United States of America, I would be fighting an uphill battle and risk deportation if I were to lose.
Please! Has anyone on here been rendered an unfavorable decision by the USCIS based on a mistake made by the Immigration office? What have you done to fix your case?
Attorneys: have any of your clients been put into this situation? What have you done to resolve the issue?
Everyone: I understand that a very small percentage of people are likely to be in the same boat that I am in, however regardless of whether or not you are in this situation, what would you do if you were in my shoes???
Would you sue the government and risk deportation? Would you wait endlessly, hoping that things become better, eventually? Or would you do something else? (If so, what?)
Thank you for taking the time to read this! For those of you who take even more time to respond to this post, thank you even more! I am truly grateful!!!
Sincerely,
Shahzaib"
Moderators, if I have done something in violation of the forum rules by posting the same post on two threads, please do not hesitate to remove the thread. It was not my intent to violate any forum rules.
For everyone else, please read below for my story/question.
"Before I begin with my question, allow me to give you a brief overview of my case:
In the year 2000, I initially filed for Labor Certification.
In 2004, I received approval of my application for Employment Authorization (I-765).
In 2005, I was sent a letter from the USCIS indicating that my application was rejected because I failed to file my case prior to a certain date issued by the USCIS.
Pretty straightforward, right? Wrong. You see, in the last letter I was sent by the USCIS it states that I failed to file my case promptly enough; I filed my case nearly a year before the deadline was set!
My lawyers and I have attempted to appeal the decision, however our attempt has been futile: our request for appeal has been denied.
I am unsure of what to do now... It is apparent that the USCIS messed up, but I cannot think of any way to reopen my case and prove it. My attorney has presented me with two options - in mid-June he will engage in a conference call with a senior individual at the Immigration Office, at which time he will present cases (including mine) which have been wrongfully denied; my second option is to sue the United States.
I am very unsure of what course of action to pursue now! My lawyer has kept my waiting all this time with stalls and meetings which he has stated will help my case, however with each passing meeting, it simply seems like he is giving me false hope... I really do not want to have to wait until mid-June, only to find out that I must wait even longer before my case is reopened.
Additionally, I am highly reluctant to sue the United States of America for messing up in the processing of my case. The judge presiding over my case will be a United States citizen - it would be like telling a child to kill his/her parent... it simply cannot happen! If I were to sue the United States of America, I would be fighting an uphill battle and risk deportation if I were to lose.
Please! Has anyone on here been rendered an unfavorable decision by the USCIS based on a mistake made by the Immigration office? What have you done to fix your case?
Attorneys: have any of your clients been put into this situation? What have you done to resolve the issue?
Everyone: I understand that a very small percentage of people are likely to be in the same boat that I am in, however regardless of whether or not you are in this situation, what would you do if you were in my shoes???
Would you sue the government and risk deportation? Would you wait endlessly, hoping that things become better, eventually? Or would you do something else? (If so, what?)
Thank you for taking the time to read this! For those of you who take even more time to respond to this post, thank you even more! I am truly grateful!!!
Sincerely,
Shahzaib"
more...
ek_akela
09-11 10:34 AM
Is there some clause where you need to be on a constant payroll once you apply 485..One of my friend who recently got laid off and thinks it might take him another couple of months to find a decent project..and during that time he won't be paid
2010 Chicago Cubs Wallpapers
pbojja
11-17 11:04 AM
I know someone who went to Canada for the weekend and got the I-94 with the correct date on it.
Note that the airline (AA), on his way out of the US, was not willing to take his I-94 since he was going for less than 30 days. So he had to explain to them about his situation and they took it.
Also note that if you have an Indian passport, you will need a visa to go to Canada.
The other option to extend your I-94 is for your employer to refile I-129, and request for extension of stay. This can be done using premium processing.
I did the same thing . Except I returned my I94 while returning to US as the airlines did not take my I94. While returning I just explained my situation to immigration officer and she was knowlegable and issued a new I94.
Note that the airline (AA), on his way out of the US, was not willing to take his I-94 since he was going for less than 30 days. So he had to explain to them about his situation and they took it.
Also note that if you have an Indian passport, you will need a visa to go to Canada.
The other option to extend your I-94 is for your employer to refile I-129, and request for extension of stay. This can be done using premium processing.
I did the same thing . Except I returned my I94 while returning to US as the airlines did not take my I94. While returning I just explained my situation to immigration officer and she was knowlegable and issued a new I94.
more...
pappu
04-30 11:32 AM
Please be careful what you post on the forums.
Immigrationvoice strongly opposes anything that violates the laws of the country. I deleted one of the posts on this thread. Our forums are visited by all kinds of people. We even had lawmaker offices and reporters viewing our website. Senior members are requested to be vigilant and report any post that harms the interest of the organization and community. Senior members should also immediately respond to any such posts so that the discussion is not continued further. Thanks.
Immigrationvoice strongly opposes anything that violates the laws of the country. I deleted one of the posts on this thread. Our forums are visited by all kinds of people. We even had lawmaker offices and reporters viewing our website. Senior members are requested to be vigilant and report any post that harms the interest of the organization and community. Senior members should also immediately respond to any such posts so that the discussion is not continued further. Thanks.
hair Chicago Cubs Hat Logo
finimits
05-03 10:01 AM
So I will automatically get a 3 year extension when I do the H1B transfer to the new company? Is that because I have a I-140 approval already? I guess I need to show that and the PERM copy. Correct?
more...
mohitb272
03-19 03:05 PM
There are several instances when a denial notice was sent, but the website continued to show the status as pending.
So if a denial letter has been received, then the website status means nothing.
Who would get the denial notice? The company or the attorney?
My friend tells me that his company no longer hires that attorney so would it mean that my friend would never actually receive the denial letter.
So if a denial letter has been received, then the website status means nothing.
Who would get the denial notice? The company or the attorney?
My friend tells me that his company no longer hires that attorney so would it mean that my friend would never actually receive the denial letter.
hot Chicago Cubs iPad Wallpaper
vdlrao
06-06 06:57 PM
I heard I-140 premium processing has been restarted. Is it true?
more...
house lt;lt; Back on the Chicago Cubs Wallpaper#39;s page
dc2007
07-25 08:14 AM
Anybody please help ....
tattoo Chicago Cubs iPhone
rajivkumarverma
10-16 08:49 PM
Rajiv,
Did you LC mention the requirements for your job. Unless it emphasized that a Masters was needed for your job profile on an LC, I140 will be denied. File an MTR right away along with a new I140 uner EB3. Beleive in god and ur priority dates will remain the same as they were. Make sure that the new I140 under EB3 matches your LC.
Good Luck
Ashish!
Thanks
Ashish Can I use the same labour.My labour got approved on June 2007.
I think labour gets expired in 6 months
Did you LC mention the requirements for your job. Unless it emphasized that a Masters was needed for your job profile on an LC, I140 will be denied. File an MTR right away along with a new I140 uner EB3. Beleive in god and ur priority dates will remain the same as they were. Make sure that the new I140 under EB3 matches your LC.
Good Luck
Ashish!
Thanks
Ashish Can I use the same labour.My labour got approved on June 2007.
I think labour gets expired in 6 months
more...
pictures Tags: chicago cubs android
derekjbj
09-16 07:39 PM
Hi All,
I am on H1 (beginning of my second 3 yr term on H1), EB2labor pending ( two US MS degrees in engineering) & I would like to apply for a full time MBA to NYU .
I would like to know if this is possible while being on H1. I know i can apply for a part time program.. but I would like to pursue a full time MBA or would I have to convert to a F1 ?..
How about pursuing a full time MBA with EAD ( 485 PENDING)
I would like to plan for a future scenario, as I would definitely want to pursue a MBA. Can you guys shed some light on this topic ?
I am on H1 (beginning of my second 3 yr term on H1), EB2labor pending ( two US MS degrees in engineering) & I would like to apply for a full time MBA to NYU .
I would like to know if this is possible while being on H1. I know i can apply for a part time program.. but I would like to pursue a full time MBA or would I have to convert to a F1 ?..
How about pursuing a full time MBA with EAD ( 485 PENDING)
I would like to plan for a future scenario, as I would definitely want to pursue a MBA. Can you guys shed some light on this topic ?
dresses Chicago Cubs Logo with City
richana
12-03 12:11 PM
This is great news
more...
makeup Chicago Cubs
needhelp!
10-24 10:34 AM
for gary!
girlfriend chicago cubs wallpaper - 97885
waitforgc1
04-23 01:25 PM
so if we change the address online.. do we need to verify the address by taking infopass
appointment ??
appointment ??
hairstyles Chicago Chicago Cubs Baseball
flex
10-02 06:23 PM
Aha - do you have a firewall with browser privacy, like Zone Alarm or Norton?
drirshad
07-01 06:20 PM
For all the nights of no sleep and days of uncertainty. Ready to go to the end of the tunnel this time .....
smuggymba
08-19 12:56 PM
Put ur head together and tell me is it too difficult to tell where he is from?
Put ur head together and don't speculate. He can be a US citizen, or a UK citizen or a Sri Lankan or a Senegalese.....stop speculating and defending your ridiculous post.
Put ur head together and don't speculate. He can be a US citizen, or a UK citizen or a Sri Lankan or a Senegalese.....stop speculating and defending your ridiculous post.
沒有留言:
張貼留言