gparr
November 25th, 2005, 04:38 PM
My primary tip is patience. When the wind is blowing, even slightly, if you're patient you will start to get in tune with the wind and be able to pick out the calm moments that always occur. You just have to be ready and then get off as many shots as possible during that calm moment. I shoot as many of my flower shots as I can very early or very late in the day. By very early, I mean at or just after sunrise. The wind is usually calm for a short while until the sun starts to heat the admosphere. I've had considerable success shooting in the very soft light at or after sunset, when the wind also calms. Long shutter speeds though. Unfortunately, too many blooms aren't open until the sun is higher in the sky and you have to resort to patience.
I've also had great success with a trick Don Bevis shared. You can get thin bamboo sticks in bundles for just a couple of dollars at your local nursery. Get the longer ones. I always carry two of them with me and stick them in the ground so that they apply slight pressure to the plant stem. This cuts down considerably on the movement. Don't know where Don learned the trick, but it works.
Some use a tool called a Plamp. See it here (http://www.naturephotographers.net/gs/gswimplamp.html) I've never used one, though have been tempted. The fear I have is that any clamping device will damage the plant. I shoot a lot in the gardens of several neighbors and at the Chicago Botanic Garden and make it a point to never leave any trace of my having been there. In other words, no footprints in the flower beds, no damaged plants, nothing. Don's trick works so well because it steadies the plant without causing any damage. It doesn't always work, but it does so often enough that it's worth hauling the sticks around.
I've also read several threads on other sites where people describe using "tents" to both diffuse the light and to stop the wind. I don't have any links for solid techniques, but will try to find some. It's tempting, though yet another piece of gear to carry.
These days I make heavy use of my 5-in-1 disk for diffusion and reflection. I have the 22-in. Photoflex Multidisc (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=breadCrumb&A=search&Q=&ci=6196), which I like a lot. It's excellent for a lot of light control purposes and sometimes serves as a good wind block. There are cheaper ones, but Kevin Sadler talked me into spending more money to get a quality product and I haven't regretted it.
When all else fails, I resort to flash to get the shot. I greatly dislike using flash and only use it when I want a shot and know that it's get it now or never. If I can come back and get the shot at a calmer time without flash, I will. I do use flash on occasion if I feel that the shot needs a little spark of light, but generally not. Flash is always used on a remote cord and diffused in some way, either with the wide-angle diffuser that's built into it, or by shooting through or bouncing it off of my multidisc.
As for shooting technique, a tripod is a must. I have two, but the one I use for flower shots allows me to splay the legs out and get the camera very low and/or allows me to reverse the column (I bought a short column to replace the one that came with the tripod) and hang the camera upside down. I use a ball head with a quick release. I also almost always use a remote release and frequently use mirror lock up. It's amazing how many images I've ruined because I moved the camera by pushing the shutter button or vibration from the mirror cause the slightest blur.
But above all, getting flower shots just requires a lot of patience. Hope all of this rambling helps.
Gary
I've also had great success with a trick Don Bevis shared. You can get thin bamboo sticks in bundles for just a couple of dollars at your local nursery. Get the longer ones. I always carry two of them with me and stick them in the ground so that they apply slight pressure to the plant stem. This cuts down considerably on the movement. Don't know where Don learned the trick, but it works.
Some use a tool called a Plamp. See it here (http://www.naturephotographers.net/gs/gswimplamp.html) I've never used one, though have been tempted. The fear I have is that any clamping device will damage the plant. I shoot a lot in the gardens of several neighbors and at the Chicago Botanic Garden and make it a point to never leave any trace of my having been there. In other words, no footprints in the flower beds, no damaged plants, nothing. Don's trick works so well because it steadies the plant without causing any damage. It doesn't always work, but it does so often enough that it's worth hauling the sticks around.
I've also read several threads on other sites where people describe using "tents" to both diffuse the light and to stop the wind. I don't have any links for solid techniques, but will try to find some. It's tempting, though yet another piece of gear to carry.
These days I make heavy use of my 5-in-1 disk for diffusion and reflection. I have the 22-in. Photoflex Multidisc (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=breadCrumb&A=search&Q=&ci=6196), which I like a lot. It's excellent for a lot of light control purposes and sometimes serves as a good wind block. There are cheaper ones, but Kevin Sadler talked me into spending more money to get a quality product and I haven't regretted it.
When all else fails, I resort to flash to get the shot. I greatly dislike using flash and only use it when I want a shot and know that it's get it now or never. If I can come back and get the shot at a calmer time without flash, I will. I do use flash on occasion if I feel that the shot needs a little spark of light, but generally not. Flash is always used on a remote cord and diffused in some way, either with the wide-angle diffuser that's built into it, or by shooting through or bouncing it off of my multidisc.
As for shooting technique, a tripod is a must. I have two, but the one I use for flower shots allows me to splay the legs out and get the camera very low and/or allows me to reverse the column (I bought a short column to replace the one that came with the tripod) and hang the camera upside down. I use a ball head with a quick release. I also almost always use a remote release and frequently use mirror lock up. It's amazing how many images I've ruined because I moved the camera by pushing the shutter button or vibration from the mirror cause the slightest blur.
But above all, getting flower shots just requires a lot of patience. Hope all of this rambling helps.
Gary
TeddyKoochu
01-06 03:41 PM
Please read the text in the USCIS page carefully. You need to clearly satisfy at least 3 criteria. In practice, you try to provide at least some evidence for most criteria.
Note also that you need to provide evidence of sustained fulfillment. E.g., suppose you want to show that
"Evidence that the alien has judged the work of others, either individually or on a panel;"
This is *not* satisfied, e.g., if you graded the papers of your students or did code-reviews! This is likely satisfied if you, e.g., were in an IEEE standards committee (especially if the standard becomes well known, e.g., IEEE 802.11, or Firewire, etc.). Similarly, if you just participated in a panel once, then the reviewer is likely to reject your claim; you really want to show that you regularly (e.g., once a month for last 3-4 years) participate in panels, etc. In my own case, I reviewed literally 100's of conference and journal papers, and was in the TPC of many conferences, and also participated in an NSF panel for reviewing proposals for funding.
The reviewer will want evidence for each criteria. Sometimes you may be able to use the same evidence towards more than one criteria, but generally it is not the case.
Finally remember that you need *very strong* recommendation letters from "well known" people *all over the world". Most people gets some letters from US, some from their home country, some from Europe, other countries, etc. I had about 10-15 letters from US, China, India, Netherlands, etc. The letter writer in each case must be very well known, and must hold a very high position (e.g., one of my letter writer was one of the heads of Philips research).
In any case, it does not matter what I or someone else thinks about your qualifications. What matters is what the reviewer of your petition thinks. What I would suggest is that if you feel that you have a good chance at EB1-A (e.g., in your own mind you believe that you truly satisfy 3 criteria), then hire a good attorney and start working on preparing your dossier. The cost will be about $7000-$10,000 (depending upon what attorney you choose). Attorneys will charge much more for EB1 petitions since they actually have to work on it (rather than get a para-legal fill-in forms, as done in EB2 applications). It usually takes 4-6 months to get all material, etc.
Thanks for all the details. Greatly appreciate your advise. Looks like lot of information needs to be collected and without a research background I think its really a long shot to justify the time effort and resources.
Note also that you need to provide evidence of sustained fulfillment. E.g., suppose you want to show that
"Evidence that the alien has judged the work of others, either individually or on a panel;"
This is *not* satisfied, e.g., if you graded the papers of your students or did code-reviews! This is likely satisfied if you, e.g., were in an IEEE standards committee (especially if the standard becomes well known, e.g., IEEE 802.11, or Firewire, etc.). Similarly, if you just participated in a panel once, then the reviewer is likely to reject your claim; you really want to show that you regularly (e.g., once a month for last 3-4 years) participate in panels, etc. In my own case, I reviewed literally 100's of conference and journal papers, and was in the TPC of many conferences, and also participated in an NSF panel for reviewing proposals for funding.
The reviewer will want evidence for each criteria. Sometimes you may be able to use the same evidence towards more than one criteria, but generally it is not the case.
Finally remember that you need *very strong* recommendation letters from "well known" people *all over the world". Most people gets some letters from US, some from their home country, some from Europe, other countries, etc. I had about 10-15 letters from US, China, India, Netherlands, etc. The letter writer in each case must be very well known, and must hold a very high position (e.g., one of my letter writer was one of the heads of Philips research).
In any case, it does not matter what I or someone else thinks about your qualifications. What matters is what the reviewer of your petition thinks. What I would suggest is that if you feel that you have a good chance at EB1-A (e.g., in your own mind you believe that you truly satisfy 3 criteria), then hire a good attorney and start working on preparing your dossier. The cost will be about $7000-$10,000 (depending upon what attorney you choose). Attorneys will charge much more for EB1 petitions since they actually have to work on it (rather than get a para-legal fill-in forms, as done in EB2 applications). It usually takes 4-6 months to get all material, etc.
Thanks for all the details. Greatly appreciate your advise. Looks like lot of information needs to be collected and without a research background I think its really a long shot to justify the time effort and resources.
eb3retro
02-24 03:49 PM
To whom it may concern, please, help us. Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
crap..who are you.???
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
crap..who are you.???
raysaikat
04-22 01:41 PM
I think i understand:) Thank you.
As I might have already mentioned, i've been working for a company for 2 years now with my EAD, they are willing to sponsor for H1B. so as long as my J principal has a waiver, then my company shoulnd face any problems on applying for a H1B right?
Could you please explain "As long as the H1-B quota is not exhausted and the petition was correctly filed". ? Is there a deadline to apply for H1B ?
i really appreciate your opinoins, thank you very much.
Talk to the immigration attorney your company is using. You (guys) do need a home residency requirement waiver to be eligible to work on H1-B. IIRC, the waiver has to come from both your home country as well as US. Anyway, I am not well conversant on J visas.
There is an annual 65,000 visa limit for H1-B visas. There is an additional 20,000 visas for M.S. degree holders in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines from US universities. Non-profit organizations and US universities are exempt from the quota limit.
The application time window for H1-B that takes effect on Oct 1, 2010 opens on April 1, 2010 (i.e., H1-B VISA starts from the start of the fiscal year, and application for that opens in the previous April). A few years back all 65,000 VISAs would get exhausted within a couple of days after the window opened (i.e., by April 3-4, all VISAs would be gone). AFAIK, the H1-B quota for 2010 (i.e., for H1-B VISAs that would start from Oct 1, 2010) is not yet exhausted. But it is always a very good idea to do the petition as soon as you can.
As I might have already mentioned, i've been working for a company for 2 years now with my EAD, they are willing to sponsor for H1B. so as long as my J principal has a waiver, then my company shoulnd face any problems on applying for a H1B right?
Could you please explain "As long as the H1-B quota is not exhausted and the petition was correctly filed". ? Is there a deadline to apply for H1B ?
i really appreciate your opinoins, thank you very much.
Talk to the immigration attorney your company is using. You (guys) do need a home residency requirement waiver to be eligible to work on H1-B. IIRC, the waiver has to come from both your home country as well as US. Anyway, I am not well conversant on J visas.
There is an annual 65,000 visa limit for H1-B visas. There is an additional 20,000 visas for M.S. degree holders in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines from US universities. Non-profit organizations and US universities are exempt from the quota limit.
The application time window for H1-B that takes effect on Oct 1, 2010 opens on April 1, 2010 (i.e., H1-B VISA starts from the start of the fiscal year, and application for that opens in the previous April). A few years back all 65,000 VISAs would get exhausted within a couple of days after the window opened (i.e., by April 3-4, all VISAs would be gone). AFAIK, the H1-B quota for 2010 (i.e., for H1-B VISAs that would start from Oct 1, 2010) is not yet exhausted. But it is always a very good idea to do the petition as soon as you can.
more...
roseball
10-07 06:30 PM
I would really love to hear comments from ppl who can relate to this possibly with some first-hand experience in going through this stage!
My labor cert was filed just this February (been about 8 months now). The application was put in as EB2 with the minimum requirements being - Masters + 3 yrs, or alternatively, a Bachelors + 5 yrs.
Now the law firm has contacted my manager asking her to prepare a "Business Necessity Statement" for a "POSSIBLE" audit! (note the word "possible", its not really an audit yet). They want my manager to explain why a Masters and 3 years is better than a Bachelors + 5 yrs for this job, and stuff like that.
Preparing a business necessity statement if there was really an audit is understandable, but this request from the law firm makes it look like they're more than certain that there will be an audit on my application. Have things gotten that bad really? Or is our law firm just pre-emptively preparing for the worst? Just to let you know, there are other ppl at my office with my similar job profile, whose labor cert has also been applied for as an EB3 (requiring only a Bachelors and work experience).
How scared should I be realistically about the possibility of an audit? And how realistic is it in this day and age to actually get an approved labor cert after responding to a business necessity audit.
Also, here's an excerpt from the email that the law firm sent to my manager. Can anyone of you suggest what kind of "additional documentation" they are talking about including with all the explanation for business necessity?
"All business necessity arguments must be evidenced via supporting documentation. Please note that the DOL prefers �independent� forms of documentation to statements from or information created by <companyname>. Make sure to be reasonably specific and identify the sources and bases for your assertions in the context of <companyname>'s business. Independent documentation that contains financial justification(s) to substantiate the business necessity argument will be particularly helpful."
The main issue with your PERM is to justify why your job required EB-2 qualifications as a requirement while others in your company with similar job profiles were only eligible under EB-3. That should be your main focus in preparing any documentation incase your case gets audited.
My labor cert was filed just this February (been about 8 months now). The application was put in as EB2 with the minimum requirements being - Masters + 3 yrs, or alternatively, a Bachelors + 5 yrs.
Now the law firm has contacted my manager asking her to prepare a "Business Necessity Statement" for a "POSSIBLE" audit! (note the word "possible", its not really an audit yet). They want my manager to explain why a Masters and 3 years is better than a Bachelors + 5 yrs for this job, and stuff like that.
Preparing a business necessity statement if there was really an audit is understandable, but this request from the law firm makes it look like they're more than certain that there will be an audit on my application. Have things gotten that bad really? Or is our law firm just pre-emptively preparing for the worst? Just to let you know, there are other ppl at my office with my similar job profile, whose labor cert has also been applied for as an EB3 (requiring only a Bachelors and work experience).
How scared should I be realistically about the possibility of an audit? And how realistic is it in this day and age to actually get an approved labor cert after responding to a business necessity audit.
Also, here's an excerpt from the email that the law firm sent to my manager. Can anyone of you suggest what kind of "additional documentation" they are talking about including with all the explanation for business necessity?
"All business necessity arguments must be evidenced via supporting documentation. Please note that the DOL prefers �independent� forms of documentation to statements from or information created by <companyname>. Make sure to be reasonably specific and identify the sources and bases for your assertions in the context of <companyname>'s business. Independent documentation that contains financial justification(s) to substantiate the business necessity argument will be particularly helpful."
The main issue with your PERM is to justify why your job required EB-2 qualifications as a requirement while others in your company with similar job profiles were only eligible under EB-3. That should be your main focus in preparing any documentation incase your case gets audited.
theperm
02-08 11:02 PM
Why would you marry in such haste & go through the trauma of not know whats going to happen i he goes to jail for the next 18 months?? why not wait until his jail issue is over ?? I am no one to judge you & mean no harm but have u thought this through ????
more...
go_guy123
01-26 03:49 PM
US needs EB1 and Ph.Ds
Others not contribute as much
Actually US needs innovation and good talent. Not all PhD are that extra ordinary.
One goes through the motions of adding incremental knowledge (that quality also depends of the reputation of the university). Most PhDs struggle from one post doc to another.
Piled Higher and Deeper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piled_Higher_and_Deeper)
PS: I mylelf dropped out of PhD like many of my friends. My experience was that
only a few PhD students were doing "good" and relevant research. Rest were very acedemic in nature and all about working on questionable commercial value of DARPA and NSF grants.
Others not contribute as much
Actually US needs innovation and good talent. Not all PhD are that extra ordinary.
One goes through the motions of adding incremental knowledge (that quality also depends of the reputation of the university). Most PhDs struggle from one post doc to another.
Piled Higher and Deeper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piled_Higher_and_Deeper)
PS: I mylelf dropped out of PhD like many of my friends. My experience was that
only a few PhD students were doing "good" and relevant research. Rest were very acedemic in nature and all about working on questionable commercial value of DARPA and NSF grants.
nozerd
11-29 03:16 PM
The fees keep changing and should be checked on the website of your nearest Canadian Consulate/Embassy.
Since now CAD is greater in value than USD, CAD fees will go up. Please see link below from Canadian Consulate Buffalo of various fees in US $. PLEASE SEND THE FEES LISTED HEREIN.
http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/main/visas/fee_schedule_us_dollars-en.asp
Since now CAD is greater in value than USD, CAD fees will go up. Please see link below from Canadian Consulate Buffalo of various fees in US $. PLEASE SEND THE FEES LISTED HEREIN.
http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/main/visas/fee_schedule_us_dollars-en.asp
more...
puvathoor
02-17 09:02 AM
Even if Charles did say that EB2 India / China will have a cut off date of Dec 2003, how come the lawyers did not question him on this logic?
EB2 India was U from Feb 2008... The way I (and most people) interpreted that was that all visas for FY 2008 were used up... The possibility of new visas was only through spillover from other categories (or recapture of unused visas from other years).
What's happening here that after being moved to Jan 2000 before becoming U in Feb, suddenly things are moving all the way to 2003.
While I would love for this to happen, this seems to be a very remote possibility.
EB2 India was U from Feb 2008... The way I (and most people) interpreted that was that all visas for FY 2008 were used up... The possibility of new visas was only through spillover from other categories (or recapture of unused visas from other years).
What's happening here that after being moved to Jan 2000 before becoming U in Feb, suddenly things are moving all the way to 2003.
While I would love for this to happen, this seems to be a very remote possibility.
theperm
05-07 01:11 PM
bumping up~
more...
permfiling
12-22 07:34 PM
Please update your profile on IV
vin13
09-30 08:03 AM
:( I just got an RFE on my case...I had 2 soft LUD from past 2 days and now the status says "Request for additional evidence sent."
I have used AC21 to change jobs but I am still on H1....Now i am worried.
I have used AC21 to change jobs but I am still on H1....Now i am worried.
more...
ps57002
07-18 11:40 AM
some people r thinking of flower campaign to atlanta center so as to speed up slowed down processin. if anyone is interested...
http://www..com/discussion-forums/atlanta-perm/4827173/last-page/
=======================
Message from IV
IV does not recommend any such actions.
We are aware of the issue and if there is any acion item, we will post it.
also be aware of what we posted earlier on this issue:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6084
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=100024#post100024
=========================
http://www..com/discussion-forums/atlanta-perm/4827173/last-page/
=======================
Message from IV
IV does not recommend any such actions.
We are aware of the issue and if there is any acion item, we will post it.
also be aware of what we posted earlier on this issue:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6084
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=100024#post100024
=========================
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
kondur_007
10-30 04:06 PM
In my case - which is little different than you since I'm actually transferring my job to a different subsidiary of the same employer with employer's blessing - attorney advised to file AC21 even though I had just received my GC. It sounds counter-intuitive but his logic behind it was as follows: USCIS will surely reject AC21 letter stating the candidate has already received GC. You can then keep this response in your file and use it to defend your case if there is any problem down the road (for example, during your citizenship processing) since you had informed USCIS and they themselves said it's not necessary. In case they do not reject your AC21 request you will still be fine since it means you invoked AC21 even though you got your GC so it should still be okay to switch before 6 months.
As always this is one attorney's personal opinion/strategy so please consult your own attorney before doing anything.
Thank you very much for sharing this information, this is a very good point; I never thought about it.
As always this is one attorney's personal opinion/strategy so please consult your own attorney before doing anything.
Thank you very much for sharing this information, this is a very good point; I never thought about it.
little_willy
08-25 03:16 PM
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
Are you sure about this? I don't think this is true. My wife entered using AP and works on H-1B. Note that she is a derivative on my I-485 and works on H-1 for a totally different employer.
Are you sure about this? I don't think this is true. My wife entered using AP and works on H-1B. Note that she is a derivative on my I-485 and works on H-1 for a totally different employer.
more...
aristotle
01-31 01:48 PM
Where?
Let me explain in a bit more detail..
Suppose you have an approved I140 from company A and got the 3 year H1 extension because of it. Now you transfer to Company B and got the full 3 years of H1 transferred. And Company A revoked your I140 after you left.
You cannot transfer to Company C at this point as there is no approved I140 to support your transfer. You cannot extend your H1 with Company B unless
A) your labor has been pending for more than a year OR
B) your I140 is approved
One your I140 is approved with Company B, you are in a good position again.
Crystal?
aren't u contradicting urself?
Let me explain in a bit more detail..
Suppose you have an approved I140 from company A and got the 3 year H1 extension because of it. Now you transfer to Company B and got the full 3 years of H1 transferred. And Company A revoked your I140 after you left.
You cannot transfer to Company C at this point as there is no approved I140 to support your transfer. You cannot extend your H1 with Company B unless
A) your labor has been pending for more than a year OR
B) your I140 is approved
One your I140 is approved with Company B, you are in a good position again.
Crystal?
aren't u contradicting urself?
reddog
06-11 03:23 PM
The answer to your last question is Yes. Provided your prev employer does not file for a revocation of I140.
I have read this same opinion from many other lawyers.
Recent Murthy chat:
Question: My I-140 just got approved. Do I need to wait for 6 months or any timeframe before I change jobs and use AC portability? Also, can the new company apply in EB2 category (earlier was EB3) without losing the priority date?
Answer: AC21 portability is not an option until the I-485 has been filed and pending for at least 180 days. If the earlier I-140 petition is still valid, then a new employer can file a new LC and I-140 and request the transfer of the earlier PD from the earlier file.Jun-4-2007.
I have read this same opinion from many other lawyers.
Recent Murthy chat:
Question: My I-140 just got approved. Do I need to wait for 6 months or any timeframe before I change jobs and use AC portability? Also, can the new company apply in EB2 category (earlier was EB3) without losing the priority date?
Answer: AC21 portability is not an option until the I-485 has been filed and pending for at least 180 days. If the earlier I-140 petition is still valid, then a new employer can file a new LC and I-140 and request the transfer of the earlier PD from the earlier file.Jun-4-2007.
gc_in_30_yrs
11-12 12:52 PM
it depends on USCIS officer. i had a good lawer when I applied for h1b transfer. i got stuck for one 15 days paycheck. eventually it is cleared after submitting the paper work. having good lawer is not enough. depends on your luck or USCIS officer also
Thanks for your input. So, the pay stub that you submitted, was it from your previous employer, or the one you got your visa transferred to? Hey, if you don't mind, can I have your lawyer�s contact details?
sure. i will PM you.
Thanks for your input. So, the pay stub that you submitted, was it from your previous employer, or the one you got your visa transferred to? Hey, if you don't mind, can I have your lawyer�s contact details?
sure. i will PM you.
hopefulgc
05-12 11:10 PM
newuser,
If you are ever in florida.. jacksonville area... give me a shout.
For this kinda support, i totally owe you a drink at buffalo wild wings.
I am in for it. I am ready to put 2K if members are going to come forward
If you are ever in florida.. jacksonville area... give me a shout.
For this kinda support, i totally owe you a drink at buffalo wild wings.
I am in for it. I am ready to put 2K if members are going to come forward
Madhuri
06-15 12:26 AM
So is it that, if you already have approved 3 yr H1 extension after 6 yrs
then it will not become invalid even if you get EAD now?
You can file I485 while H1 is pending. But if you read the H1 ext clause, you can see that you are eligible for H1 extension beyond 6 years only if your labor is pending for more than 1 year, or if you can't file for adjustment of status because of retrogression. Now, because you are eligible for I-485, you lose the eligibility to extend H1, which means, your pending H1 can be denied whether you file I485 or not. You might be lucky and get away with successful extension. But if the officer knows what he is doing, he'll not clear your extension. I have to add that I am assuming your H1 extension is BEYOND 6 years. If it is within 6 years, there is no problem. You'll get an extension.
then it will not become invalid even if you get EAD now?
You can file I485 while H1 is pending. But if you read the H1 ext clause, you can see that you are eligible for H1 extension beyond 6 years only if your labor is pending for more than 1 year, or if you can't file for adjustment of status because of retrogression. Now, because you are eligible for I-485, you lose the eligibility to extend H1, which means, your pending H1 can be denied whether you file I485 or not. You might be lucky and get away with successful extension. But if the officer knows what he is doing, he'll not clear your extension. I have to add that I am assuming your H1 extension is BEYOND 6 years. If it is within 6 years, there is no problem. You'll get an extension.
No comments:
Post a Comment