bkshres
10-20 11:28 AM
Hi
I used AC21 to switch the company. First my new company said I have to use my existing old attorney for my I485 case. So, I asked my old attorney to prepare AC21 documents and mailed to USCIS, which is already done.
But now the attorney from new company is saying that they are again doing AC21 documents and will be sending to USCIS. On top, new attorney is asking me to fill G28 form. Is it necessary to file AC21 document twice or make it too confusing? And this G28 is only for me, not for my wife. I am confused with whole thing. How will this work? with my case transferred to new attorney and my wife's case still with old attorney? I also heard from this new attorney that most of the time G28 and AC21 documents will never reach to USCIS file and in that case, USCIS will communicate with old attorney. On one hand, I have to tell my old attorney that I am changing attorney but on other hand I am not even sure whether USCIS will accept or not. My old attorney has been always helpful and he has all my information and original documents.
Is it advisable to switch attorney when you have I-485 pending? and is this filing of AC21 documents twice necessary or will make more confusion in my case? What is advisable in this situation? What should I say to this new company attorney and what should I say to my old attorney? I am in big dilemma...
Please help. I need your suggestion.
Thanks,
BK
I used AC21 to switch the company. First my new company said I have to use my existing old attorney for my I485 case. So, I asked my old attorney to prepare AC21 documents and mailed to USCIS, which is already done.
But now the attorney from new company is saying that they are again doing AC21 documents and will be sending to USCIS. On top, new attorney is asking me to fill G28 form. Is it necessary to file AC21 document twice or make it too confusing? And this G28 is only for me, not for my wife. I am confused with whole thing. How will this work? with my case transferred to new attorney and my wife's case still with old attorney? I also heard from this new attorney that most of the time G28 and AC21 documents will never reach to USCIS file and in that case, USCIS will communicate with old attorney. On one hand, I have to tell my old attorney that I am changing attorney but on other hand I am not even sure whether USCIS will accept or not. My old attorney has been always helpful and he has all my information and original documents.
Is it advisable to switch attorney when you have I-485 pending? and is this filing of AC21 documents twice necessary or will make more confusion in my case? What is advisable in this situation? What should I say to this new company attorney and what should I say to my old attorney? I am in big dilemma...
Please help. I need your suggestion.
Thanks,
BK
wallpaper Justin Bieber photoshop!
prem_goel
11-25 01:27 PM
Dipika,
Please make sure to add a disclaimer if your post has not been helpful and creates unnecessary panic ;) (For ex: Don't blame IV if that happens )
Please make sure to add a disclaimer if your post has not been helpful and creates unnecessary panic ;) (For ex: Don't blame IV if that happens )
chanduv23
08-09 08:39 AM
Check this out, get inspired
N2KFOXvkHNM
Make it to the luncheon as well as the rally
N2KFOXvkHNM
Make it to the luncheon as well as the rally
2011 Justin Bieber has a name and
desi485
09-27 04:32 PM
mine was filed NSC but transferred to TSC. I called my lawyer and just heard this news. lawyer received notices today.
For anyone still waiting, do not worry. this process is not very streamlined. It may get delayed but it will come. be patient.
AFAIK -> one day after the receipt date, my checks were still not encashed.
For anyone still waiting, do not worry. this process is not very streamlined. It may get delayed but it will come. be patient.
AFAIK -> one day after the receipt date, my checks were still not encashed.
more...
EkAurAaya
03-19 06:43 PM
no ones ever sold a house on H1B or EAD? :confused:
GCBy3000
01-03 04:37 PM
Yes, we should not restrict the contribution by $20 minimum.
When there are more than 6000+ registered members without contributing, for sure there will be several members who may think in future ( its my hope) to contribute in small steps before they get ready to contribute in big way.
Atleast it is my hope. I dont know what those registered members are waiting for. May be they want president Bush to become a member of core IV team. Even then, I dont think they will take a penny out from their wallet if they dont have the right attitude and desire to work as a team.
When there are more than 6000+ registered members without contributing, for sure there will be several members who may think in future ( its my hope) to contribute in small steps before they get ready to contribute in big way.
Atleast it is my hope. I dont know what those registered members are waiting for. May be they want president Bush to become a member of core IV team. Even then, I dont think they will take a penny out from their wallet if they dont have the right attitude and desire to work as a team.
more...
hydubadi
02-03 12:32 PM
^^^^Bump^^^
2010 justin bieber photoshop
natrajs
08-16 03:45 PM
It depends how the Employer and Employee discussed before starting the GC process.
Some may sponsor the cost only for the Employee and let Employee pay for the dependants.
To my best of my knowledge Employer can not charge back the Employee for sponsoring the GC, However there is no rule set for the dependants
Some may sponsor the cost only for the Employee and let Employee pay for the dependants.
To my best of my knowledge Employer can not charge back the Employee for sponsoring the GC, However there is no rule set for the dependants
more...
aadimanav
10-26 09:42 AM
On Home page it is still not fixed.
hair justin bieber photoshop fail.
khans02
10-03 03:00 PM
Applied for labor February of 2004 in regular then changed to RIR in September 2004. Got 45 day letter in May. Finally got labor approval letter yesterday October 2nd.
I have a question - is there any premium process for I 140 or 485?
Thanks
Saeed Khan
I have a question - is there any premium process for I 140 or 485?
Thanks
Saeed Khan
more...
antihero
04-14 11:13 PM
IV does not support any fraudulent activity by anybody, whether employees or employers or anybody else.
It because of faking the resumes by unscrupulous individuals things have come to this pass. Many genuinely honest and hardworking folks are slogging on in the GC queue while many who can't even spell technology have got GCs in a matter of months by exploiting loopholes.
My advice, go back to your home country, get some education in your chosen vocation and restart your career through honest means.
It because of faking the resumes by unscrupulous individuals things have come to this pass. Many genuinely honest and hardworking folks are slogging on in the GC queue while many who can't even spell technology have got GCs in a matter of months by exploiting loopholes.
My advice, go back to your home country, get some education in your chosen vocation and restart your career through honest means.
hot Justin Bieber?
pandu_hawaldar
10-17 02:44 PM
First you should fill up all the forms. (156/157) for you and your spouse, then it will let you go ahead and ask to select a date and then it will ask you to put some email address, where a link will be sent to download forms and sign them. You can click on back button and fill in more than one email id to make sure that you receive the link in one of 'em. 157 is required for certain age upto 55 years.
more...
house 2010 justin bieber photoshop
dbevis
July 15th, 2004, 07:45 PM
I hope they are, too. Some birds seem to feed the young much longer than others, even after they've left the nest. I'd suggest taking a large *Do Not Disturb* sign with you tomorrow. Or perhaps "Approach at Your Own Risk*.
:)"Be quiet, or I will bash you with this big lens!" (the people, not the birds!)
:)"Be quiet, or I will bash you with this big lens!" (the people, not the birds!)
tattoo jan skip tojustin ieber Justin+ieber+photoshopped+into+a+girl
lazycis
07-01 04:44 PM
Well, definitely do not pay anything voluntarily. Wait for them to start legal action. If they don't, you are free. If they do, consult with an attorney and you can always settle outside of court. Non-compete clauses are difficult to enforce, but it is a possibility. It depends on the contract you signed with A.
more...
pictures It or love it, justin lonely girl toned men Source tells cant believe her
dealsnet
09-09 04:53 PM
You are talking about this company.?
Telecall - Company Profile on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/companies/telecall)
web address.
http://www.telecallnet.com/
The access number is shown below by http://www.switchboard.com
(631) 763-1059
Type: Land Line
Location: Cold Spring Harbor, NY
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
Telecall - Company Profile on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/companies/telecall)
web address.
http://www.telecallnet.com/
The access number is shown below by http://www.switchboard.com
(631) 763-1059
Type: Land Line
Location: Cold Spring Harbor, NY
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
dresses justin bieber is a girl proof.
sanjeev_2004
10-04 02:03 PM
Saeed,
I 140 can processed through premioum process from last week.
Can you tell what was state of filing your GC labor. My company filed from IL in july 2004 in EB2-RIR case. My Labor is still in process. Though I got 45 days latter in March.
sanjeev
I 140 can processed through premioum process from last week.
Can you tell what was state of filing your GC labor. My company filed from IL in july 2004 in EB2-RIR case. My Labor is still in process. Though I got 45 days latter in March.
sanjeev
more...
makeup justin bieber and selena gomez
gantilk
04-27 11:26 PM
Thanks Desertfox. Did you send any supporting documents. there were contradicting opinions on whether to send or not send any additional documentation after e-filing EAD. Please let us know what you sent or not sent?
girlfriend 2011 Justin Bieber Fan
BharatPremi
10-13 02:45 AM
Hi Guys,
I Fedex my 485 package on July, 11th and it got reached to USCIS on July, 12 (I have the acknolegement) but still did not receive the receipt number. I am seeing who filed after me started getting receipt numbers.
I am kind of concerned about it as I did not see any movement in my case.
Any inputs Or wondering if anybody else facing similar situation??????
Appreciate your inputs.
Thanks,
M
1) Call USCIS
2) INofrm that you filed 90 days before.
I Fedex my 485 package on July, 11th and it got reached to USCIS on July, 12 (I have the acknolegement) but still did not receive the receipt number. I am seeing who filed after me started getting receipt numbers.
I am kind of concerned about it as I did not see any movement in my case.
Any inputs Or wondering if anybody else facing similar situation??????
Appreciate your inputs.
Thanks,
M
1) Call USCIS
2) INofrm that you filed 90 days before.
hairstyles 2011 justin bieber wallpaper
MerciesOfInjustices
05-22 12:48 AM
On Monday, May 22, 2006, a very important new study was released on the "impact of backlogs, processing delays, and long wait times on legal immigrants seeking to join the U.S. workforce as skilled employment-based and family-sponsored immigrants". Aman Kapoor and Shilpa Ghodgaonkar from IV spoke at the release as did Senator Cornyn! The title of the study says it very clearly - Legal Immigrants: Waiting Forever (http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPStudyLegalImmigrantsWaitingForever052206.pdf)!
Certainly this is a great study, for several reasons.
It is the first of its kind
It is derived from official data, not from anecdotal evidence
It is written by independent, non-partisan scholars, who are not immigrants!
It confirms the need for fixing the 'Legal side of Immigration' ASAP!
Among the findings of the study:
• Waits for green cards (permanent residence) in the Skilled Workers and Professionals category have worsened considerably in the past few years, with the current wait for a newly-sponsored high skill immigrant in this category exceeding five years.
One of the co-authors is Stuart Anderson, Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy. He is very experienced on Immigration matters, and has served in the INS (in Policy/Planning) and on Capitol Hill. Impeccable credentials - though I would not support anybody on the operations side of the INS! He might have even authored the language of some of the laws that govern us now, when he served on Sen Brownback's staff!
Stuart Anderson, Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, served as Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning and Counselor to the Commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service from August 2001 to January 2003. He spent four and a half years on Capitol Hill on the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, first for Senator Spencer Abraham and then as Staff Director of the subcommittee for Senator Sam Brownback. Prior to that, Stuart was Director of Trade and Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., where he produced reports on the military contributions of immigrants and the role of immigrants in high technology. He has an M.A. from Georgetown University and a B.A. in Political Science from Drew University. Stuart has published articles in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other publications.
Amongst others on NFAP Advisory Board, the name of James Ziglar stands out. Many of us remember him as the former head of the INS - definitely somebody who is well-versed with Immigration matters.
But, this Board also includes Prof Jagdish Bhagwati, renowned economist - certainly a very learned & highly-skilled immigrant. (Interestingly, if Prof Bhagwati had to apply for his Green Card today - he would get it only in several years! Or, they would have to get an Act of Congress for him!). Also on the Board is Cesar Conda, who was an advisor to Vice-President Cheney on domestic policy.
The official release (http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPRelease052206.pdf) of the study took place at Washington D.C.
Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who opposes the current guestworker plan in the bill being debated in the Senate, said he had offered an amendment to the bill that would eliminate the quota for some highly-skilled workers educated in the US. He said economic competitiveness was at stake in the way in which the issue was handled.
Aman Kapoor, founder of the group (Immigration Voice), says the broken employment-based immigration system forces workers like him to live in a state of limbo. People working in the US who are waiting for their green cards, as he has done since October 2003, cannot change jobs or move up in position, thus restricting their opportunities, he says.
It was also covered by MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12919954/).
Please look up the NFAP website NFAP (http://www.nfap.com)! It is amazingly accurate, and uptodate. It highlights mostly H-1B related issues, but is very knowledgeable about the business aspects of Immigration.
We already know our issues, but a study from non-partisan scholars adds immense weight to them! Even if this study goes beyond our issues, all of the issues will be important to us or our family at some point of our lives!
In summary, this study will be huge in advancing our cause!
Certainly this is a great study, for several reasons.
It is the first of its kind
It is derived from official data, not from anecdotal evidence
It is written by independent, non-partisan scholars, who are not immigrants!
It confirms the need for fixing the 'Legal side of Immigration' ASAP!
Among the findings of the study:
• Waits for green cards (permanent residence) in the Skilled Workers and Professionals category have worsened considerably in the past few years, with the current wait for a newly-sponsored high skill immigrant in this category exceeding five years.
One of the co-authors is Stuart Anderson, Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy. He is very experienced on Immigration matters, and has served in the INS (in Policy/Planning) and on Capitol Hill. Impeccable credentials - though I would not support anybody on the operations side of the INS! He might have even authored the language of some of the laws that govern us now, when he served on Sen Brownback's staff!
Stuart Anderson, Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, served as Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning and Counselor to the Commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service from August 2001 to January 2003. He spent four and a half years on Capitol Hill on the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, first for Senator Spencer Abraham and then as Staff Director of the subcommittee for Senator Sam Brownback. Prior to that, Stuart was Director of Trade and Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., where he produced reports on the military contributions of immigrants and the role of immigrants in high technology. He has an M.A. from Georgetown University and a B.A. in Political Science from Drew University. Stuart has published articles in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other publications.
Amongst others on NFAP Advisory Board, the name of James Ziglar stands out. Many of us remember him as the former head of the INS - definitely somebody who is well-versed with Immigration matters.
But, this Board also includes Prof Jagdish Bhagwati, renowned economist - certainly a very learned & highly-skilled immigrant. (Interestingly, if Prof Bhagwati had to apply for his Green Card today - he would get it only in several years! Or, they would have to get an Act of Congress for him!). Also on the Board is Cesar Conda, who was an advisor to Vice-President Cheney on domestic policy.
The official release (http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPRelease052206.pdf) of the study took place at Washington D.C.
Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who opposes the current guestworker plan in the bill being debated in the Senate, said he had offered an amendment to the bill that would eliminate the quota for some highly-skilled workers educated in the US. He said economic competitiveness was at stake in the way in which the issue was handled.
Aman Kapoor, founder of the group (Immigration Voice), says the broken employment-based immigration system forces workers like him to live in a state of limbo. People working in the US who are waiting for their green cards, as he has done since October 2003, cannot change jobs or move up in position, thus restricting their opportunities, he says.
It was also covered by MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12919954/).
Please look up the NFAP website NFAP (http://www.nfap.com)! It is amazingly accurate, and uptodate. It highlights mostly H-1B related issues, but is very knowledgeable about the business aspects of Immigration.
We already know our issues, but a study from non-partisan scholars adds immense weight to them! Even if this study goes beyond our issues, all of the issues will be important to us or our family at some point of our lives!
In summary, this study will be huge in advancing our cause!
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.
misha
07-21 10:53 AM
Hi,
I have absolutely the same story happened to my wife.
I'm July 2007 filer, she is a dependent. She never received AP which was approved and mailed on September 2007.
Called USCIS on October, November and December 2007. No results.
Took Infopass on January 2008. We were told that we have to apply for a new one.
On April 2008 we applied for NEW AP. I attached a cover letter, explaining everything and asking to put approval start date from the actual approval date and not the date of expiration of previous AP, which is September 2008 because it was lost. They ignored the letter!
On June 2008 we received new AP with Start Date September 2008.
My wife need to travel on August 2008.
I made infopass appointment on July 2008. I do not have any hope. At least I can try. Going to ask about FBI Name Check.
I read, somebody got AP issued by local CIS office during the infopass. But I think it's rare.
Any suggestions?
Misha
I485 EB3 filed on July 2, 2007
PD: December 2005
I have absolutely the same story happened to my wife.
I'm July 2007 filer, she is a dependent. She never received AP which was approved and mailed on September 2007.
Called USCIS on October, November and December 2007. No results.
Took Infopass on January 2008. We were told that we have to apply for a new one.
On April 2008 we applied for NEW AP. I attached a cover letter, explaining everything and asking to put approval start date from the actual approval date and not the date of expiration of previous AP, which is September 2008 because it was lost. They ignored the letter!
On June 2008 we received new AP with Start Date September 2008.
My wife need to travel on August 2008.
I made infopass appointment on July 2008. I do not have any hope. At least I can try. Going to ask about FBI Name Check.
I read, somebody got AP issued by local CIS office during the infopass. But I think it's rare.
Any suggestions?
Misha
I485 EB3 filed on July 2, 2007
PD: December 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment