purgan
01-22 11:35 AM
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5585.html
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
wallpaper hot Estoy Enamorado De Wisin y
logiclife
06-25 06:36 PM
Hi all,
My attorney (a great guy by the way) filed my I485 without my employment verification letter. When I raised the question, he argued that the employment verification letter cannot be a ground for denial and that worst case scenario will be USCIS sending a RFE.
Is it true that it is not a ground for denial?
Is is possible to send it it separately to complete the file?
What would be your advice?
Thanks is advance.
The most recent USCIS memo says that if initial evidence is missing, then they can deny the petition without bothering to send the RFE. This is memo as of June 17th.
Employment verification letter is listed in the intial evidence on 485 form. So it is very risk to send 485 without that coz it could get denied without you ever seeing an RFE.
Ask your lawyer if he has read the USCIS memo on June 17th. If he hasnt, then send him/her this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
Thanks.
My attorney (a great guy by the way) filed my I485 without my employment verification letter. When I raised the question, he argued that the employment verification letter cannot be a ground for denial and that worst case scenario will be USCIS sending a RFE.
Is it true that it is not a ground for denial?
Is is possible to send it it separately to complete the file?
What would be your advice?
Thanks is advance.
The most recent USCIS memo says that if initial evidence is missing, then they can deny the petition without bothering to send the RFE. This is memo as of June 17th.
Employment verification letter is listed in the intial evidence on 485 form. So it is very risk to send 485 without that coz it could get denied without you ever seeing an RFE.
Ask your lawyer if he has read the USCIS memo on June 17th. If he hasnt, then send him/her this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
Thanks.
jkays94
06-29 07:39 AM
The reality is there will not be another immigration bill this year if CIR does not make it. And calling CIR the "amnesty bill" means some of us may have started pandering to and unfortunately have fallen for the anti-immigrationists propaganda trap. That is fine if one thinks its okay to wait for another two years while a new congress settles in and for key immigration bills to come to the floor. However "cutting and running" is what we do when out of fear of association we fail to stand up and speak up and explain our motivating cause which is the plight of legal law abiding immigrants who contribute legally to this country. In my own personal opinion this is an excellent opportunity that can put IV in the spot light and distinguish IV for standing up for highly skilled immigrants. This requires good orational and communication skills so that one is not misquoted. If it takes wearing a t-shirt saying "Support Legal Immigrants" then so be it, but lets not cut and run on the basis of someone elses propaganda. If IV opts out then let it be because we could not find someone who could clearly get our unique message and goals out. Thanks to randallemery for bringing this opportunity to IV's attention and I hope the IV core will respond appropriately as this needs to be a well coordinated effort. When people fully understand the humanitarian reasons why legal immigrants need relief through CIR they tend to be more compassionate and supportive. However if we sit and twiddle our thumbs because of what Lou Dobbs says then we are doing exactly what these anti-immigrationists want us to do. The primary victory of Rep Chris Cannon (R) in Utah ought to be a shot in the arm for those fighting for CIR. Instead of cutting and running he supported CIR, the anti-immigrationist opponents attacked CIR and in the end they still lost. Rep Cannon had the opportunity of being associated with the alleged "amnesty" bill but he stood up bravely to be counted as a CIR supporter and prevailed in the end.
2011 wisin y yandel estoy enamorado
fall2004us
09-01 01:00 PM
Nice article...
Its really saddening, parents do so much for their kids and when they grow old, the kids cant take good care of them ??
My own cousins are like that two cousins (vice president of a reputed company and another one is a surgeon) put their mom to old age home, another cousin didnt even have medical insurace for his parents reason being he is a Dr and he can take care of them during any situation.
Its really saddening, parents do so much for their kids and when they grow old, the kids cant take good care of them ??
My own cousins are like that two cousins (vice president of a reputed company and another one is a surgeon) put their mom to old age home, another cousin didnt even have medical insurace for his parents reason being he is a Dr and he can take care of them during any situation.
more...
.jpg "estoy enamorado wisin y yandel")
Munna Bhai
12-14 08:20 AM
I have been looking to possible cause of getting RFE at I-140 stage and I came up with the following:
1.If your qualification doesn't match with the job description, like you have AMIE,Diploma,M.Sc 3 years courses but I-140 says Major required is Engineering or B.Tech(chemical) or B.Tech(mech) but working in Software.
2.Ability to pay, which means how many I-140 that company currently has and whether that is equally distributed for wages.
3.Ability to pay, which means have you submitted the required Tax document etc so that it shows company can pay future wages.
I would like to get more information so that others who are planning to apply for GC should take this into consideration.
Any inputs is appreciated.
Thanks,
-M
1.If your qualification doesn't match with the job description, like you have AMIE,Diploma,M.Sc 3 years courses but I-140 says Major required is Engineering or B.Tech(chemical) or B.Tech(mech) but working in Software.
2.Ability to pay, which means how many I-140 that company currently has and whether that is equally distributed for wages.
3.Ability to pay, which means have you submitted the required Tax document etc so that it shows company can pay future wages.
I would like to get more information so that others who are planning to apply for GC should take this into consideration.
Any inputs is appreciated.
Thanks,
-M
paragpujara
04-05 08:30 AM
Yeah I will consult a lawyer but before i contact him just want to make sure whatever my employer is explaining is correct or not..
Thanks for your valuable advice.
Thanks for your valuable advice.
more...
bestofall
07-30 12:19 PM
URGENT UPDATE: HR5882 scheduled for tomorrow - PLEASE CALL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Immigration Sub-Committee is planning on mark up Congresswoman Lofgren's recapture bill tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon in her subcommittee. This is an extremely IMPORTANT development. We are hoping that an agreement reached such that there is no party line vote on this effort. As such all members are requested to PLEASE PLEASE call the following members on the subcommittee requesting them to support Lofgren's recapture bill H.R.5882.
Majority Members (Democrats)
Member Name DC Phone
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) 202-225-3816
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) 202-225-3111
Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA) 202-225-6676
Artur Davis (D-AL) 202-225-2665
Keith Ellison (D-MN) 202-225-4755
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 202-225-6616
Minority Members (Republicans)
Member Name DC Phone
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member]202-225-4426
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Immigration Sub-Committee is planning on mark up Congresswoman Lofgren's recapture bill tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon in her subcommittee. This is an extremely IMPORTANT development. We are hoping that an agreement reached such that there is no party line vote on this effort. As such all members are requested to PLEASE PLEASE call the following members on the subcommittee requesting them to support Lofgren's recapture bill H.R.5882.
Majority Members (Democrats)
Member Name DC Phone
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) 202-225-3816
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) 202-225-3111
Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA) 202-225-6676
Artur Davis (D-AL) 202-225-2665
Keith Ellison (D-MN) 202-225-4755
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 202-225-6616
Minority Members (Republicans)
Member Name DC Phone
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member]202-225-4426
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
2010 house wisin y yandel - estoy
i4u
07-28 08:57 AM
Thanks for your response. I have not tried the infopass yet. But my PD is not current and will that be an issue for scheduling an Infopass apointment.
Also, is Infopass same as Service Request (SR).
Service Request is for those who are waiting for more than 90 days for check clearance or to report a problem. Also check IV wikki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Technical_Terms_on_US_Immigration)
Also, is Infopass same as Service Request (SR).
Service Request is for those who are waiting for more than 90 days for check clearance or to report a problem. Also check IV wikki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Technical_Terms_on_US_Immigration)
more...
ppt.b
09-11 10:08 AM
Our checks were cashed on 09/04 and our lawyer has still not received our recipts.However we received FP yesterday by mail and our appointment date is 09/25.
We are waiting for our receipts and EAD.
So expect your FP notices anytime.
My 485 application was filed on July 1st, 2007. Yesterday I received an email from my lawyer indicating that they have received the receipts for 485, 765 & 131 for all the applicants in my family.
I understand that it takes 3 to 4 weeks after receiving the receipt notices to hear about the fingerprinting appointment.
1. Considering the number of AOS applications filed in July, when can I expect the fingerprinting appointment?
2. Also how will that correspondence occur: mail or telephone ? Will I hear about this directly or will my lawyer hear about it?
3. Can few of you who have received the appointment for fingerprinting after filing AOS application in May 07 - Aug 07 timeframe post some details:
a) When did you receive the AOS receipts?
b) When did you hear about the fingerprinting and how?
c) When are you expecting EAD or if you have received it, how long did it take? I am aware that it takes 90 to 120 days from the date of filing and this was answered in one of my questions posted on this forum but wanted to know these stats in the current conditions.
Thanks,
We are waiting for our receipts and EAD.
So expect your FP notices anytime.
My 485 application was filed on July 1st, 2007. Yesterday I received an email from my lawyer indicating that they have received the receipts for 485, 765 & 131 for all the applicants in my family.
I understand that it takes 3 to 4 weeks after receiving the receipt notices to hear about the fingerprinting appointment.
1. Considering the number of AOS applications filed in July, when can I expect the fingerprinting appointment?
2. Also how will that correspondence occur: mail or telephone ? Will I hear about this directly or will my lawyer hear about it?
3. Can few of you who have received the appointment for fingerprinting after filing AOS application in May 07 - Aug 07 timeframe post some details:
a) When did you receive the AOS receipts?
b) When did you hear about the fingerprinting and how?
c) When are you expecting EAD or if you have received it, how long did it take? I am aware that it takes 90 to 120 days from the date of filing and this was answered in one of my questions posted on this forum but wanted to know these stats in the current conditions.
Thanks,
hair estoy enamorado wisin y yandel
piyu7444
07-03 01:27 AM
H1B transfer pending & going out of US for 3 days.
My h1b is valid till Sep 30 2008 and this h1b is from my old employer which I left on jun 20. I joined new employer on Jun 23rd and the petition was filed on Jun 16th, it was rcvd by USCIS on Jun 17th.
I am going to Mexico on Jul 4th and will be coming back on Jul 7th. Now if I am not asked to surrender i-94 while I leave USA I think I will be OK but if I had to surrender i-94 while leaving USA then what documents I should have to enter (USA) ???
Should I tell that I have joined new employer or should I not?
My old employer is not going to cancel my currenct h1b PLUS my old employer had filed for an extension also....
I have read that if the petitioner can not provide with proof of h1b transfer in form of rcpt notice or approved i 797 at the POE then he/she is inadmissible.
Please help by throwing out your thoughts/past experience/knowledge base in this area.
Thanks
My h1b is valid till Sep 30 2008 and this h1b is from my old employer which I left on jun 20. I joined new employer on Jun 23rd and the petition was filed on Jun 16th, it was rcvd by USCIS on Jun 17th.
I am going to Mexico on Jul 4th and will be coming back on Jul 7th. Now if I am not asked to surrender i-94 while I leave USA I think I will be OK but if I had to surrender i-94 while leaving USA then what documents I should have to enter (USA) ???
Should I tell that I have joined new employer or should I not?
My old employer is not going to cancel my currenct h1b PLUS my old employer had filed for an extension also....
I have read that if the petitioner can not provide with proof of h1b transfer in form of rcpt notice or approved i 797 at the POE then he/she is inadmissible.
Please help by throwing out your thoughts/past experience/knowledge base in this area.
Thanks
more...
snowcatcher
05-22 08:12 AM
This is the actual study that was referred to in this article. It seems like they just posted it? It's timing is perfect. Looks like we are going to be lucky. Let's hope so.
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPStudyLegalImmigrantsWaitingForever052206.pdf
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPStudyLegalImmigrantsWaitingForever052206.pdf
hot estoy enamorado wisin y yandel
jettu77
10-05 03:57 PM
^^^
more...
house Photobucket | wisin y yandel
senthil1
12-06 11:42 PM
I think Eb2 is much better. Retrogression is hardly more than 3 years and moves fast sometimes. Best thing is get a preapproved labor if available in your company
tattoo Wisin amp; Yandel en Premios
dionysus
01-24 11:37 AM
Filing for I-485 is better as after six months, the employers can not do much. Disagree with this post altogether.
Of course it is better. I am not denying that. But is it an achievable goal? Is this goal likely to be reached in next one year?
Asking for greater job flexibility is the goal that IV can reach within this session of the house itself. This is what it should focus upon. This will mean that within a couple of months EB based GC seekers will start getting offers with better salaries and better benefits.
Of course it is better. I am not denying that. But is it an achievable goal? Is this goal likely to be reached in next one year?
Asking for greater job flexibility is the goal that IV can reach within this session of the house itself. This is what it should focus upon. This will mean that within a couple of months EB based GC seekers will start getting offers with better salaries and better benefits.
more...
pictures arrived Single
inskrish
08-01 12:04 AM
Love the analogy.
Thanks Coopheal for leaving the IV wiki effort.
Pappu,
Just wanted to clarify, is it 'Leaving' or 'Leading'?
Thanks Coopheal for leaving the IV wiki effort.
Pappu,
Just wanted to clarify, is it 'Leaving' or 'Leading'?
dresses לחץ לצפיה ב: Wisin Y Yandel
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 )
more...
makeup WISIN amp; YANDEL - ESTOY
gcwanted101
09-01 12:10 PM
Hi
I have my Labor and 140 approved. (140 approved in Jan 2009)
But my employer is not ready to provide me with copy of my approved PERM labor and 140. Just like any other employer.
So I am planning to request both of this by making FOIA request to DOL and USCIS.
I have done some ground work for that. Now here are my questions.
1) If I haven�t applied for 485 yet will USCIS/DOL release this document to me?
Or are both of this employer�s petitions?
2) I have heard that after six month of 140 approvals it become employee petition.
How much true is that?
If anyone like me (who haven�t applied 485 yet) got their copy of labor and 140 through FOIA. Please share your experience.
I have my Labor and 140 approved. (140 approved in Jan 2009)
But my employer is not ready to provide me with copy of my approved PERM labor and 140. Just like any other employer.
So I am planning to request both of this by making FOIA request to DOL and USCIS.
I have done some ground work for that. Now here are my questions.
1) If I haven�t applied for 485 yet will USCIS/DOL release this document to me?
Or are both of this employer�s petitions?
2) I have heard that after six month of 140 approvals it become employee petition.
How much true is that?
If anyone like me (who haven�t applied 485 yet) got their copy of labor and 140 through FOIA. Please share your experience.
girlfriend Wisin amp; Yandel - Estoy
waitforgc1
05-07 12:08 PM
I think if iam not wrong its not based of the priority date or anything else. Its just random
hairstyles +y+yandel+estoy+enamorado
dassumi
12-23 03:00 PM
You can use your AP with no issues. That's the exact intent of that document.
Hi Guys,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
Hi Guys,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
desi3933
02-11 10:34 AM
Sanju is correct.
Look at his posts. He is making up stuff.
hi everyone..i try to long story short.i came here 2001 with b1 then i stay since date.. 2004 my employer apply for gc. so far i got my i 140 approved notice about about 1 year ago..
but law we have to wait.they my lawyer said we have wait mayby long time.. my case date is april 2006 ..
Q1-do i have rigth to work here now?
Q2-do i have to wait realy long time?
Q3- can i do anything for waiting time shorter?
MY lawyer is good man but i can even talk to him when i need
...
i lostmy legal in 2002 (b2). during 2003 i won gc lottery . we did al paper work till last step.my lawyer toll me dont go couse deportation. In 2005 my employer apply gc for me (em3) In April 2006 I-140 aproved.now we waiting for priority date..
My question to you .. my lottery case priority date can be use for my eb3 case?
Look at his posts. He is making up stuff.
hi everyone..i try to long story short.i came here 2001 with b1 then i stay since date.. 2004 my employer apply for gc. so far i got my i 140 approved notice about about 1 year ago..
but law we have to wait.they my lawyer said we have wait mayby long time.. my case date is april 2006 ..
Q1-do i have rigth to work here now?
Q2-do i have to wait realy long time?
Q3- can i do anything for waiting time shorter?
MY lawyer is good man but i can even talk to him when i need
...
i lostmy legal in 2002 (b2). during 2003 i won gc lottery . we did al paper work till last step.my lawyer toll me dont go couse deportation. In 2005 my employer apply gc for me (em3) In April 2006 I-140 aproved.now we waiting for priority date..
My question to you .. my lottery case priority date can be use for my eb3 case?
vin13
01-16 01:07 PM
Isn't recapturing of H1-B when you are trying to determine if you have used up your 6 year limit.
In this case, he is trying to get out of H1 and get back in. At this time he will be considered on the yearly cap.
I think we are talking of two different aspects.
In this case, he is trying to get out of H1 and get back in. At this time he will be considered on the yearly cap.
I think we are talking of two different aspects.
No comments:
Post a Comment