STAmisha
09-30 05:53 PM
BUMP~
If somebody has an answer, please reply.
If somebody has an answer, please reply.
armorgames.com. http://armorgames.com/play/
arc
08-14 01:56 PM
Hi All
Did anyone got Receipt # from this Pile?
Application Reached NSC on July 2 @ 7.55 AM and was received by R Williams?
DID OUR PILE GOT LOOKED AT?
Did anyone got Receipt # from this Pile?
Application Reached NSC on July 2 @ 7.55 AM and was received by R Williams?
DID OUR PILE GOT LOOKED AT?
armorgames.com. found on http://armorgames.com
check_rd
11-06 06:05 PM
Let me check back on the date i had applied and let u know.
armorgames.com. beta.armorgames.com before
calgirl
05-25 07:50 PM
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
What does the above statement mean??
So, folks who have an advanced degree from the US are exempt from the cap? Or advanced degree plus 3 yrs of work exp is required?
Here is my reading of the amendment.
If you look at the original bill (S2611) Section 508 reads
SEC. 508. VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.
(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
**************************************************
Bingaman Amendment 4181 and 4182 on the other hand state
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
************************************************** ****
Reading S2611 Section 508 in conjunction with SA4811 and SA4812 specifically shows that STEM + 3 applicants as well as their spouses and children are not subject to any caps. On the other had the troubling part is that those not covered by STEM+3 will have 450,000 principal applicant slots and therefore only 200,000 spouse and children slots. This discrepancy arises from the fact that Bingaman multiplied 290,000 by 1.2 to arrive at his figure while S2611 allows for 450,000 principal applicants in the 1st 10 years to remove backlog.
SA 4188 is not currently available for reading and it will be interesting to see what change has been made to the language in 508(a)(1)(G) to allow all STEM +3 to be exempt. It would also be interesting to see whether language in Sec 508(b)(3)(III) has been changed to reflect the changes in 508(a)(1)(G)
Note that if both these sections are changed to allow all STEM+3 then labor certification too becomes easier. Hopefully changes here can provide some relief from Bingaman's torpedo.
I would appreciate comments as my analysis may be wrong.
What does the above statement mean??
So, folks who have an advanced degree from the US are exempt from the cap? Or advanced degree plus 3 yrs of work exp is required?
Here is my reading of the amendment.
If you look at the original bill (S2611) Section 508 reads
SEC. 508. VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.
(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
**************************************************
Bingaman Amendment 4181 and 4182 on the other hand state
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
************************************************** ****
Reading S2611 Section 508 in conjunction with SA4811 and SA4812 specifically shows that STEM + 3 applicants as well as their spouses and children are not subject to any caps. On the other had the troubling part is that those not covered by STEM+3 will have 450,000 principal applicant slots and therefore only 200,000 spouse and children slots. This discrepancy arises from the fact that Bingaman multiplied 290,000 by 1.2 to arrive at his figure while S2611 allows for 450,000 principal applicants in the 1st 10 years to remove backlog.
SA 4188 is not currently available for reading and it will be interesting to see what change has been made to the language in 508(a)(1)(G) to allow all STEM +3 to be exempt. It would also be interesting to see whether language in Sec 508(b)(3)(III) has been changed to reflect the changes in 508(a)(1)(G)
Note that if both these sections are changed to allow all STEM+3 then labor certification too becomes easier. Hopefully changes here can provide some relief from Bingaman's torpedo.
I would appreciate comments as my analysis may be wrong.
more...
armorgames.com. http://armorgames.com/play
ivar
04-16 02:03 PM
Yes, I saw that you are applying for the third time, I saw in another post your 140 got approved too earlier. May I ask what screwed it up for you couple of times? You can IM me if you don't want to discuss here, just want to get some idea not complete details.
Good luck!!
I sent you a PM.
Thanks.
Good luck!!
I sent you a PM.
Thanks.
armorgames.com. Armor games: armorgames.com
kumar_herald
04-04 05:28 PM
I need expert advice -
My I-140 has been approved and I-485 pending for more than 18 months. I have a valid EAD & AP. I also have a valid H1-B visa valid till 2011,
that I am using for my current employment with my current employer
1. If I get laid-off, how long can I stay in US without another job?
2. I understand that in order to maintain my eligibility to "port" to a new employer / sponsor under AC21, I should have another job in same or similar occupation. Till I find another job, am I allowed to do some part-time job in different occupation?
3. If new employer gives me the option to move permanently to its subsidiary in another country, what are the available option for me to continue with green card processing?
4. If after going out of the country , I want to come back in future before Green card approval, what will be the available options?
My I-140 has been approved and I-485 pending for more than 18 months. I have a valid EAD & AP. I also have a valid H1-B visa valid till 2011,
that I am using for my current employment with my current employer
1. If I get laid-off, how long can I stay in US without another job?
2. I understand that in order to maintain my eligibility to "port" to a new employer / sponsor under AC21, I should have another job in same or similar occupation. Till I find another job, am I allowed to do some part-time job in different occupation?
3. If new employer gives me the option to move permanently to its subsidiary in another country, what are the available option for me to continue with green card processing?
4. If after going out of the country , I want to come back in future before Green card approval, what will be the available options?
more...
armorgames.com. Arcuz on Armorgames.com
iptel
01-30 02:48 PM
Just a suggestion I think if we involve US India Polical Action Committee(USINPAC) may be our effort to reach the law maker will be easier.
Members of the U.S. Senate India Caucus are as follows -
Senator Cornyn (R - TX) � Republican Co-Chair
Senator Clinton (D - NY) � Democratic Co-Chair
Senator Hutchison (R - TX)
Senator Lott (R - MS)
Senator Lautenberg (D - NJ)
Senator Santorum (R - PA)
Senator Lieberman (D - CT)
Senator Specter (R - PA)
Senator Daschle (D - SD)
Senator Stabenow (D - MI)
Senator Bingaman (D - NM)
Senator Cochran (R - MS)
Senator Frist (R - TN)
Senator Corzine (D - NJ)
Senator L. Graham (R - SC)
Senator Schumer (D - NY)
Senator Wyden (D - OR)
Senator Coleman (R - MN)
Senator Chambliss (R - GA)
Senator Bayh (D - IN)
Senator Durbin (D - IL)
Senator Breaux (D - LA)
Senator Crapo (R - ID)
Senator Levin (D - MI)
Senator Fitzgerald (R - IL)
Senator Grassley (R - IA)
Senator Bennett (R - UT)
Senator Boxer (D - CA)
Senator Nickles (R - OK)
Senator Stevens (R - AK)
Senator Mikulski (D - MD)
Senator Rockefeller (D - WV)
Senator Landrieu (D - LA)
Senator Hatch (R - UT)
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Members of Congressional India Caucus
108th Congress elected in November 2002
List updated as of June 18, 2004
112 Democrats, 74 Republicans, Total 186
Congressman Crowley (D-NY) - Democratic Co-Chair
Congressman Wilson, Joe (R-SC) - Republican Co-Chairman
Congressman Abercrombie (D- HI)
Congressman Ackerman (D-NY)
Congressman Andrews (D-NJ)
Congressman Baca (D- CA )
Congressman Baird (D- WA)
Congressman Barrett, J. Gresham (R-SC )
Congressman Beauprez (R-CO)
Congressman Becerra (D-CA)
Congressman Bell (D-TX)
Congresswoman Berkley (D-NV)
Congressman Berman (D-CA)
Congresswoman Biggert (R-IL)
Congressman Bilirakis (R-FL)
Congressman Bishop, Rob (R-UT)
Congressman Blumenauer ( D-OR)
Congressman Boucher (D-VA)
Congressman Brady, Kevin (R-TX)
Congresswoman Brown, Corrine (D-FL)
Congresswoman Brown, Henry (R-SC)
Congressman Brown, Sherrod (D-OH)
Congresswoman Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-FL)
Congressman Burgess (R-TX)
Congressman Burns (R-GA)
Congressman Calvert (R-CA)
Congressman Cannon (R-UT)
Congressman Cantor (R-VA)
Congresswoman Capps (D-CA)
Congressman Capuano (D-MA)
Congressman Cardoza (D-CA)
Congressman Carson, Brad (D-OK)
Congressman Chabot (R-OH)
Congressman Chandler (D- KY )
Congressman Cooper (D-TN)
Congressman Cox (R-CA)
Congresswoman Cubin (R-WY)
Congressman Davis, Danny (D-IL)
Congressman Davis, Jim (D-FL)
Congressman DeFazio (D-OR)
Congressman Delahunt (D-MA)
Congressman Deutsch (D-FL)
Congressman DeMint (R-SC)
Congressman Dicks (D-WA)
Congressman Doggett (D-TX)
Congressman Doyle (D-PA)
Congressman Duncan (D-TN)
Congresswoman Dunn (R-WA)
Congressman Ehlers (R- MI)
Congressman Engel (D-NY)
Congressman English (R- PA )
Congresswoman Eshoo (D-CA)
Congressman Evans (D-IL)
Congressman Faleomavaega (D-AS)
Congressman Feeney (R-FL)
Congressman Ferguson (R-NJ)
Congressman Filner (D-CA)
Congressman Foley (R-FL)
Congressman Forbes (R-VA)
Congressman Ford (D-TN)
Congressman Frank (D-MA)
Congressman Franks (R-AZ)
Congressman Frost (D-TX)
Congressman Garrett (R-NJ)
Congressman Gephardt (D-MO)
Congressman Gillmor (R-OH)
Congressman Gingrey (R-GA)
Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA)
Congressman Gordon (D-TN)
Congresswoman Granger (R-TX)
Congressman Green, Gene (D-TX)
Congressman Green, Mark (R-WI)
Congressman Greenwood (R-PA)
Congressman Gutierrez (D-IL)
Congressman Harris (R-FL)
Congressman Hastings (D-FL)
Congressman Hayworth (R-AZ)
Congressman Hensarling (R-TX)
Congressman Hoeffel (D-PA)
Congressman Holt (D-NJ)
Congresswoman Hooley (D-OR)
Congressman Honda (D-CA)
Congressman Hoyer (D-MD)
Congressman Inslee (D-WA)
Congressman Israel (D-NY)
Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Congresswoman Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-TX)
Congressman Jones (R-NC)
Congressman Kanjorski (D-PA)
Congresswoman Kaptur (D-OH)
Congresswoman Kelly (R-NY)
Congressman Kennedy, Patrick (D-RI)
Congressman Kildee (D-MI)
Congressman Kind (D-WI)
Congressman King, Peter (R-NY)
Congressman Kirk (R-IL)
Congressman Knollenberg (R-MI)
Congressman Kolbe (R-AZ)
Congressman Kucinich (D-OH)
Congressman LaHood (R-IL)
Congressman Lampson (D-TX)
Congressman Lantos (D-CA)
Congressman Larsen (D-WA)
Congressman LaTourette (R-OH)
Congresswoman Lee, Barbara (D-CA)
Congressman Levin (D-MI)
Congressman Lewis, Jerry (R-CA)
Congressman Lewis, John (D-GA)
Congressman Linder (R-GA)
Congressman Lobiondo (R-NJ)
Congressman Lofgren (D-CA)
Congresswoman Lowey (D-NY)
Congresswoman McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY)
Congresswoman McCarthy, Karen (D-MO)
Congressman McCotter (R-MI)
Congressman McDermott (D-WA)
Congressman McIntyre (D-NC)
Congressman McNulty (D-NY)
Congressman Majette (D-GA)
Congresswoman Maloney (D-NY)
Congressman Manzullo (R-IL)
Congressman Matheson (D-UT)
Congressman Meehan (D-MA)
Congressman Meek (D-FL)
Congressman Meeks (D-NY)
Congressman Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Congresswoman Millender-McDonald (D-CA)
Congressman Miller, Brad (D-NC)
Congressman Miller, Gary (R-CA)
Congresswoman Miller, Jeff (R-FL)
Congressman Mollohan (D-WV)
Congressman Moran, Jim (D-VA)
Congresswoman Myrick (R-NC)
Congresswoman Napolitano (D-CA)
Congressman Neal (D-MA)
Congressman Ney (R-OH)
Congressman Pallone (D-NJ)
Congressman Payne (D-NJ)
Congressman Pearce (R-NM)
Congressman Pickering (R-MS)
Congressman Pitts (R-PA)
Congressman Price (D-NC)
Congresswoman Pryce (R-OH)
Congressman Putnam (R-FL)
Congressman Radanovich (R-CA)
Congressman Rahall (D-WV)
Congressman Rangel (D-NY)
Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL)
Congressman Rothman (D-NJ)
Congressman Royce (R-CA)
Congressman Ryan, Tim (D-OH)
Congresswoman Sanchez, Linda (D-CA)
Congresswoman Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA)
Congressman Saxton (R-NJ)
Congresswoman Schakowsky (D-IL)
Congressman Schiff (D-CA)
Congressman Scott, Robert (D-VA)
Congressman Schrock (R-VA)
Congressmen Sessions (R-TX)
Congressman Sherman (D-CA)
Congressman Smith, Adam (D-WA)
Congresswoman Solis (D-CA)
Congressman Souder (R-IN)
Congressman Spratt (D-SC)
Congressman Stark (D-CA)
Congressman Stearns (R-FL)
Congressman Thompson, Mike (D-CA)
Congressman Tierney (D-MA)
Congressman Toomey (R-PA)
Congressman Towns (D-NY)
Congressman Turner, Michael (R-OH)
Congressman Udall, Mark (D-CO)
Congressman Udall, Tom (D-NM)
Congressman Upton (R-MI)
Congressman Van Hollen (D-MD)
Congressman Visclosky (D-IN)
Congressman Vitter (R-LA)
Congressman Walsh (R-NY)
Congresswoman Watson (D-CA)
Congressman Watt (D-NC)
Congressman Weiner (D-NY)
Congressman Weldon, Dave (R-FL)
Congressman Wexler (D-FL)
Congressman Whitfield (R-KY)
Congressman Wu (D-OR)
Members of the U.S. Senate India Caucus are as follows -
Senator Cornyn (R - TX) � Republican Co-Chair
Senator Clinton (D - NY) � Democratic Co-Chair
Senator Hutchison (R - TX)
Senator Lott (R - MS)
Senator Lautenberg (D - NJ)
Senator Santorum (R - PA)
Senator Lieberman (D - CT)
Senator Specter (R - PA)
Senator Daschle (D - SD)
Senator Stabenow (D - MI)
Senator Bingaman (D - NM)
Senator Cochran (R - MS)
Senator Frist (R - TN)
Senator Corzine (D - NJ)
Senator L. Graham (R - SC)
Senator Schumer (D - NY)
Senator Wyden (D - OR)
Senator Coleman (R - MN)
Senator Chambliss (R - GA)
Senator Bayh (D - IN)
Senator Durbin (D - IL)
Senator Breaux (D - LA)
Senator Crapo (R - ID)
Senator Levin (D - MI)
Senator Fitzgerald (R - IL)
Senator Grassley (R - IA)
Senator Bennett (R - UT)
Senator Boxer (D - CA)
Senator Nickles (R - OK)
Senator Stevens (R - AK)
Senator Mikulski (D - MD)
Senator Rockefeller (D - WV)
Senator Landrieu (D - LA)
Senator Hatch (R - UT)
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Members of Congressional India Caucus
108th Congress elected in November 2002
List updated as of June 18, 2004
112 Democrats, 74 Republicans, Total 186
Congressman Crowley (D-NY) - Democratic Co-Chair
Congressman Wilson, Joe (R-SC) - Republican Co-Chairman
Congressman Abercrombie (D- HI)
Congressman Ackerman (D-NY)
Congressman Andrews (D-NJ)
Congressman Baca (D- CA )
Congressman Baird (D- WA)
Congressman Barrett, J. Gresham (R-SC )
Congressman Beauprez (R-CO)
Congressman Becerra (D-CA)
Congressman Bell (D-TX)
Congresswoman Berkley (D-NV)
Congressman Berman (D-CA)
Congresswoman Biggert (R-IL)
Congressman Bilirakis (R-FL)
Congressman Bishop, Rob (R-UT)
Congressman Blumenauer ( D-OR)
Congressman Boucher (D-VA)
Congressman Brady, Kevin (R-TX)
Congresswoman Brown, Corrine (D-FL)
Congresswoman Brown, Henry (R-SC)
Congressman Brown, Sherrod (D-OH)
Congresswoman Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-FL)
Congressman Burgess (R-TX)
Congressman Burns (R-GA)
Congressman Calvert (R-CA)
Congressman Cannon (R-UT)
Congressman Cantor (R-VA)
Congresswoman Capps (D-CA)
Congressman Capuano (D-MA)
Congressman Cardoza (D-CA)
Congressman Carson, Brad (D-OK)
Congressman Chabot (R-OH)
Congressman Chandler (D- KY )
Congressman Cooper (D-TN)
Congressman Cox (R-CA)
Congresswoman Cubin (R-WY)
Congressman Davis, Danny (D-IL)
Congressman Davis, Jim (D-FL)
Congressman DeFazio (D-OR)
Congressman Delahunt (D-MA)
Congressman Deutsch (D-FL)
Congressman DeMint (R-SC)
Congressman Dicks (D-WA)
Congressman Doggett (D-TX)
Congressman Doyle (D-PA)
Congressman Duncan (D-TN)
Congresswoman Dunn (R-WA)
Congressman Ehlers (R- MI)
Congressman Engel (D-NY)
Congressman English (R- PA )
Congresswoman Eshoo (D-CA)
Congressman Evans (D-IL)
Congressman Faleomavaega (D-AS)
Congressman Feeney (R-FL)
Congressman Ferguson (R-NJ)
Congressman Filner (D-CA)
Congressman Foley (R-FL)
Congressman Forbes (R-VA)
Congressman Ford (D-TN)
Congressman Frank (D-MA)
Congressman Franks (R-AZ)
Congressman Frost (D-TX)
Congressman Garrett (R-NJ)
Congressman Gephardt (D-MO)
Congressman Gillmor (R-OH)
Congressman Gingrey (R-GA)
Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA)
Congressman Gordon (D-TN)
Congresswoman Granger (R-TX)
Congressman Green, Gene (D-TX)
Congressman Green, Mark (R-WI)
Congressman Greenwood (R-PA)
Congressman Gutierrez (D-IL)
Congressman Harris (R-FL)
Congressman Hastings (D-FL)
Congressman Hayworth (R-AZ)
Congressman Hensarling (R-TX)
Congressman Hoeffel (D-PA)
Congressman Holt (D-NJ)
Congresswoman Hooley (D-OR)
Congressman Honda (D-CA)
Congressman Hoyer (D-MD)
Congressman Inslee (D-WA)
Congressman Israel (D-NY)
Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Congresswoman Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-TX)
Congressman Jones (R-NC)
Congressman Kanjorski (D-PA)
Congresswoman Kaptur (D-OH)
Congresswoman Kelly (R-NY)
Congressman Kennedy, Patrick (D-RI)
Congressman Kildee (D-MI)
Congressman Kind (D-WI)
Congressman King, Peter (R-NY)
Congressman Kirk (R-IL)
Congressman Knollenberg (R-MI)
Congressman Kolbe (R-AZ)
Congressman Kucinich (D-OH)
Congressman LaHood (R-IL)
Congressman Lampson (D-TX)
Congressman Lantos (D-CA)
Congressman Larsen (D-WA)
Congressman LaTourette (R-OH)
Congresswoman Lee, Barbara (D-CA)
Congressman Levin (D-MI)
Congressman Lewis, Jerry (R-CA)
Congressman Lewis, John (D-GA)
Congressman Linder (R-GA)
Congressman Lobiondo (R-NJ)
Congressman Lofgren (D-CA)
Congresswoman Lowey (D-NY)
Congresswoman McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY)
Congresswoman McCarthy, Karen (D-MO)
Congressman McCotter (R-MI)
Congressman McDermott (D-WA)
Congressman McIntyre (D-NC)
Congressman McNulty (D-NY)
Congressman Majette (D-GA)
Congresswoman Maloney (D-NY)
Congressman Manzullo (R-IL)
Congressman Matheson (D-UT)
Congressman Meehan (D-MA)
Congressman Meek (D-FL)
Congressman Meeks (D-NY)
Congressman Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Congresswoman Millender-McDonald (D-CA)
Congressman Miller, Brad (D-NC)
Congressman Miller, Gary (R-CA)
Congresswoman Miller, Jeff (R-FL)
Congressman Mollohan (D-WV)
Congressman Moran, Jim (D-VA)
Congresswoman Myrick (R-NC)
Congresswoman Napolitano (D-CA)
Congressman Neal (D-MA)
Congressman Ney (R-OH)
Congressman Pallone (D-NJ)
Congressman Payne (D-NJ)
Congressman Pearce (R-NM)
Congressman Pickering (R-MS)
Congressman Pitts (R-PA)
Congressman Price (D-NC)
Congresswoman Pryce (R-OH)
Congressman Putnam (R-FL)
Congressman Radanovich (R-CA)
Congressman Rahall (D-WV)
Congressman Rangel (D-NY)
Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL)
Congressman Rothman (D-NJ)
Congressman Royce (R-CA)
Congressman Ryan, Tim (D-OH)
Congresswoman Sanchez, Linda (D-CA)
Congresswoman Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA)
Congressman Saxton (R-NJ)
Congresswoman Schakowsky (D-IL)
Congressman Schiff (D-CA)
Congressman Scott, Robert (D-VA)
Congressman Schrock (R-VA)
Congressmen Sessions (R-TX)
Congressman Sherman (D-CA)
Congressman Smith, Adam (D-WA)
Congresswoman Solis (D-CA)
Congressman Souder (R-IN)
Congressman Spratt (D-SC)
Congressman Stark (D-CA)
Congressman Stearns (R-FL)
Congressman Thompson, Mike (D-CA)
Congressman Tierney (D-MA)
Congressman Toomey (R-PA)
Congressman Towns (D-NY)
Congressman Turner, Michael (R-OH)
Congressman Udall, Mark (D-CO)
Congressman Udall, Tom (D-NM)
Congressman Upton (R-MI)
Congressman Van Hollen (D-MD)
Congressman Visclosky (D-IN)
Congressman Vitter (R-LA)
Congressman Walsh (R-NY)
Congresswoman Watson (D-CA)
Congressman Watt (D-NC)
Congressman Weiner (D-NY)
Congressman Weldon, Dave (R-FL)
Congressman Wexler (D-FL)
Congressman Whitfield (R-KY)
Congressman Wu (D-OR)
armorgames.com. Inc on armorgames.com.
ComicDom1
December 21st, 2007, 01:11 AM
First I want to say hello to everyone because I have not been on this site for a while. Second, I want to wish everyone a happy holiday season.
Recently, I have been taking a good hard look at the Olympus E-3. I came to Canon Digital in the early days of the 1D after shooting many different digital cameras including Olympus.
I was well pleased using my E-10, E100RS, E-20, and UZI but when I got the 1D in my hands it was as if a whole new world opened up for me again.
Like many others, I have been following the development of Olympus Camera's. Many of us switched to other brands because we grew tired of waiting for Olympus to produce a DSLR that might be able to compete with the offering from Nikon or Canon. The move to producing a full frame 4/3's sensor was interesting as well. When Olympus finally did release the E-1, it offered a great build including a splash proof body, and some very high quality glass. Unfortunately it lacked in a few area's and although interesting, unless you shot at lower ISO, it was not a camera for people who liked to shoot in low light and sporting events.
I realize, that not everyone has the same requirements for a camera. There are many users the E-1 body worked for. I finally picked one up after the prices fell to a very low point, and I could not resist the deal. I have found the image quality very good if you stay within the limits of the camera.
Finally the E-3 arrived in November and Olympus had made many upgrades in this body. I was very curious as to how competitive IS built in the body of the camera would work. I was also interested in the speed and tracking of the new auto focus system, and if Olympus had really improved on the noise levels of the camera at Higher ISOs. Although many in the Olympus SLR forum at DPR will claim that Noise is no problem at High ISO, my experiences with the camera told me different.
I do have to say, I found the E-3 very well built. The viewfinder is very bright. With the Grip attached, the E-3 felt very similar in my hands to my Canon 1D and 1DMKII.
One of the promises that Olympus made was that the 4/3 system was going to provide us with a smaller lighter Camera body with smaller lenses. While this might be true for some of their mid range cameras, it is certainly not true for the E-3 or E-1 with the grip attached. When sitting on the floor next to my 1D and 1DMKII bodies, I did not find much difference in their size. Lenses might be another story but yesterday, I compared the Olympus 35-100mm to the 70-200 2.8 IS lens and found that the Olympus lens was actually slightly heavier. Unfortunately Olympus has not produced any faster primes like the 85 1.8 of Canon. You really do not have good comparisons of lenses because most of what Olympus produces are variable zooms with the exception of a couple of lenses. Olympus also seems to advertise that they cover the focal length of lenses better than any other manufacturer. Since they include lenses from Sigma and Lecia/pany in this claim, I find difficulty in accepting that. Certainly if I have to consider a lens, I would prefer it was from the maker of my camera, but thats just a personal preference based on past experience.
I do have to give Kudo's to Olympus for improving both the frames per second, as well as the Auto Focus tracking and speed. I found the E-3 will track pretty well in a poorly lit gym. The E-3 also appears to write to the CF card pretty quickly. Why they included a slot for an XD card is beyond me. They would have been much better off to include a slot for the SD cards because of their high capacity.
I also qualified to be an Olympus Global Professional member. What this means is that I can get equipment to evaluate just like what CPS offers. Olympus goes one step further than Canon here because they will even loan you equipment while yours is in repair. So I had them send me a few items to try out. Some of the items I received was the EC-14 tele-converter, 150mm F 2.0, 50mm F 2.0 Macro, as well as a ring flash, and Fl-50R to evaluate. I think I need more time with the FL-50R and ring flash to know how I feel about them.
One of the reasons I wanted the 150mm F 2.0 (effective focal length of 300mm on the E-3) to test is because I wanted to see how it compared in weight and Image Quality to my 300mm 2.8L lens. I also wanted to know how well the E3 in body IS would work with it. Unfortunately I got side tracked because I noticed that my E-3 images contained quite a bit of noise from the images I shot and got consumed looking at that. I can tell you that the 150 and E-3 with grip combination felt very unbalanced in my hands compared to the Canon lens. The 150mm weights 3.4lbs but of course has the effective focal length of 300mm on the E-3 because of the sensor size. If we wanted to compare apples to apples, 300mm to 300mm or actual focal length, we would find that the Olympus 300mm weighs in at a hefty 7.2 lbs compared to Canon's 300mm 2.8 IS lens which is 5.6 lbs. Also the Olympus glass is much more expensive as well.
The problem here is that we are paying more for effective focal length just because the camera sensor is different. So in my view, we are paying more for less in the physical sense.
I mounted the 150mm on a monopod as well. Again compared to the 1D with the 300mm, even though the E-3 combination was lighter, it was not balanced as well and was more difficult for me to steady. I do attribute some of this with me being more experienced with the Canon Gear. There is another issue that concerned me here. I did not feel that the Tripod collar of the 150mm lens was made as heavy or as well as the Canon version.
I am currently going though several hundred exposures I have taken with various focal lengths of Olympus lenses. Since I felt my body has some issues because of noise, yesterday I returned it, the grip, and the 12-60 SWD lens to my vendor. I am waiting now for Olympus to send me another body to try out, so I can find out if it was me or the camera at fault. In the mean time, it seems that my findings are similiar to what Phil found in his DPR review of the new Sony that included the E-3 as well as the D300 and 40D.
In closing, I need to say that this all came about because not only was I interested in the development and capability of the E-3, there were also the noted problems of the 1DMKIII. At this point, I think my 1DMKII will still do nicely for sports. Since I pretty much own the Canon lenses I need, I am considering the 5D, but I want to also give the Olympus E-3 a fair chance, so I am going to wait to see if Olympus follows through on their promise to me.
I also am aware that there is a possibility that a 5D replacement may be announced at PMA next month. Of course I am basically interested in the best image quality, I do not know if I will wait for the replacement. Since the 5D has large photosites, I would think that the replacement would have more pixels so the image quality may be affected.
Thanks for Reading,
Jason
ComicDom1@aol.com
Recently, I have been taking a good hard look at the Olympus E-3. I came to Canon Digital in the early days of the 1D after shooting many different digital cameras including Olympus.
I was well pleased using my E-10, E100RS, E-20, and UZI but when I got the 1D in my hands it was as if a whole new world opened up for me again.
Like many others, I have been following the development of Olympus Camera's. Many of us switched to other brands because we grew tired of waiting for Olympus to produce a DSLR that might be able to compete with the offering from Nikon or Canon. The move to producing a full frame 4/3's sensor was interesting as well. When Olympus finally did release the E-1, it offered a great build including a splash proof body, and some very high quality glass. Unfortunately it lacked in a few area's and although interesting, unless you shot at lower ISO, it was not a camera for people who liked to shoot in low light and sporting events.
I realize, that not everyone has the same requirements for a camera. There are many users the E-1 body worked for. I finally picked one up after the prices fell to a very low point, and I could not resist the deal. I have found the image quality very good if you stay within the limits of the camera.
Finally the E-3 arrived in November and Olympus had made many upgrades in this body. I was very curious as to how competitive IS built in the body of the camera would work. I was also interested in the speed and tracking of the new auto focus system, and if Olympus had really improved on the noise levels of the camera at Higher ISOs. Although many in the Olympus SLR forum at DPR will claim that Noise is no problem at High ISO, my experiences with the camera told me different.
I do have to say, I found the E-3 very well built. The viewfinder is very bright. With the Grip attached, the E-3 felt very similar in my hands to my Canon 1D and 1DMKII.
One of the promises that Olympus made was that the 4/3 system was going to provide us with a smaller lighter Camera body with smaller lenses. While this might be true for some of their mid range cameras, it is certainly not true for the E-3 or E-1 with the grip attached. When sitting on the floor next to my 1D and 1DMKII bodies, I did not find much difference in their size. Lenses might be another story but yesterday, I compared the Olympus 35-100mm to the 70-200 2.8 IS lens and found that the Olympus lens was actually slightly heavier. Unfortunately Olympus has not produced any faster primes like the 85 1.8 of Canon. You really do not have good comparisons of lenses because most of what Olympus produces are variable zooms with the exception of a couple of lenses. Olympus also seems to advertise that they cover the focal length of lenses better than any other manufacturer. Since they include lenses from Sigma and Lecia/pany in this claim, I find difficulty in accepting that. Certainly if I have to consider a lens, I would prefer it was from the maker of my camera, but thats just a personal preference based on past experience.
I do have to give Kudo's to Olympus for improving both the frames per second, as well as the Auto Focus tracking and speed. I found the E-3 will track pretty well in a poorly lit gym. The E-3 also appears to write to the CF card pretty quickly. Why they included a slot for an XD card is beyond me. They would have been much better off to include a slot for the SD cards because of their high capacity.
I also qualified to be an Olympus Global Professional member. What this means is that I can get equipment to evaluate just like what CPS offers. Olympus goes one step further than Canon here because they will even loan you equipment while yours is in repair. So I had them send me a few items to try out. Some of the items I received was the EC-14 tele-converter, 150mm F 2.0, 50mm F 2.0 Macro, as well as a ring flash, and Fl-50R to evaluate. I think I need more time with the FL-50R and ring flash to know how I feel about them.
One of the reasons I wanted the 150mm F 2.0 (effective focal length of 300mm on the E-3) to test is because I wanted to see how it compared in weight and Image Quality to my 300mm 2.8L lens. I also wanted to know how well the E3 in body IS would work with it. Unfortunately I got side tracked because I noticed that my E-3 images contained quite a bit of noise from the images I shot and got consumed looking at that. I can tell you that the 150 and E-3 with grip combination felt very unbalanced in my hands compared to the Canon lens. The 150mm weights 3.4lbs but of course has the effective focal length of 300mm on the E-3 because of the sensor size. If we wanted to compare apples to apples, 300mm to 300mm or actual focal length, we would find that the Olympus 300mm weighs in at a hefty 7.2 lbs compared to Canon's 300mm 2.8 IS lens which is 5.6 lbs. Also the Olympus glass is much more expensive as well.
The problem here is that we are paying more for effective focal length just because the camera sensor is different. So in my view, we are paying more for less in the physical sense.
I mounted the 150mm on a monopod as well. Again compared to the 1D with the 300mm, even though the E-3 combination was lighter, it was not balanced as well and was more difficult for me to steady. I do attribute some of this with me being more experienced with the Canon Gear. There is another issue that concerned me here. I did not feel that the Tripod collar of the 150mm lens was made as heavy or as well as the Canon version.
I am currently going though several hundred exposures I have taken with various focal lengths of Olympus lenses. Since I felt my body has some issues because of noise, yesterday I returned it, the grip, and the 12-60 SWD lens to my vendor. I am waiting now for Olympus to send me another body to try out, so I can find out if it was me or the camera at fault. In the mean time, it seems that my findings are similiar to what Phil found in his DPR review of the new Sony that included the E-3 as well as the D300 and 40D.
In closing, I need to say that this all came about because not only was I interested in the development and capability of the E-3, there were also the noted problems of the 1DMKIII. At this point, I think my 1DMKII will still do nicely for sports. Since I pretty much own the Canon lenses I need, I am considering the 5D, but I want to also give the Olympus E-3 a fair chance, so I am going to wait to see if Olympus follows through on their promise to me.
I also am aware that there is a possibility that a 5D replacement may be announced at PMA next month. Of course I am basically interested in the best image quality, I do not know if I will wait for the replacement. Since the 5D has large photosites, I would think that the replacement would have more pixels so the image quality may be affected.
Thanks for Reading,
Jason
ComicDom1@aol.com
more...
armorgames.com. game from armorgames.com.
reno_john
06-20 05:19 PM
Sam is rite, Leave it blank , USCIS will check the system and fill it. I have seen few cases in this forum where applicant wrote a A# and when they received the receipt it was different, SO leave blank there is no harm.
Even my attorney left it blank even though I have my I-140 approved before filing my I-485
Even my attorney left it blank even though I have my I-140 approved before filing my I-485
armorgames.com. http://armorgames.com.
starlite
07-22 04:27 AM
I guess this community is not for willful violators like you. Here we are trying to share information from/for people who follow rules. There are many people (anti-immigration lobbyist and anti-H1b lobby) reading this forum. This will give impression as if this forum is for giving advise to people like you who do not care for the law and will give bad name to IV. I guess you should cough up some money and get advise from a good immigration lawyer. Also, I would suggest a moderator or administrator to look into this matter adn have this thread removed.
Dear 1234mg,
The immigrant community makes up for all kinds of people with different harships and challenges. My personal story has to do with being out of status as a minor due to the lack of resources that my parents couldn't keep me in status. Yes, my presence in the past violated the immigration law, but it was due to circumstances that were out of my control. And I've taken personal responsiblity to keep my records in accordance of the law ever since I reentered the US.
Your description of my story as "willful" violation is very judgmental and sounds like you feel righteous. But I bet you personally know someone who may have been out of status for one reason or another and I wonder if you are this confrontational and heartless with the person.
If you don't have words of encouragement or constructive feedback, then I suggest that you worry about your own. It doesn't take too much to get out of status given the current immigration system nowadays.
Dear 1234mg,
The immigrant community makes up for all kinds of people with different harships and challenges. My personal story has to do with being out of status as a minor due to the lack of resources that my parents couldn't keep me in status. Yes, my presence in the past violated the immigration law, but it was due to circumstances that were out of my control. And I've taken personal responsiblity to keep my records in accordance of the law ever since I reentered the US.
Your description of my story as "willful" violation is very judgmental and sounds like you feel righteous. But I bet you personally know someone who may have been out of status for one reason or another and I wonder if you are this confrontational and heartless with the person.
If you don't have words of encouragement or constructive feedback, then I suggest that you worry about your own. It doesn't take too much to get out of status given the current immigration system nowadays.
more...
armorgames.com. http://armorgames.com/play
dkann
08-27 02:35 PM
Got 2yr EAD for both me and my wife with expiration date in August 2010.
I 140 still pending. (Filed July '07, concurrent).
I 140 still pending. (Filed July '07, concurrent).
armorgames.com. http://armorgames.com/play
Abhinaym
11-17 09:42 AM
The President is once again giving Political KULFI to all Legal immigrants.
Can you please explain what is 'political KULFI'? Not obvious to me...
Can you please explain what is 'political KULFI'? Not obvious to me...
more...
armorgames.com. http://armorgames.com/play
snathan
05-15 10:49 AM
Hi Pappu,
How about 10000+ people sing a single letter and send it to every congressman/woman or senator. When you ask people to send letter to all congressman/woman they won�t. But i believe they wont hesitate to just sign one letter. Let me know if it�s useful
How about 10000+ people sing a single letter and send it to every congressman/woman or senator. When you ask people to send letter to all congressman/woman they won�t. But i believe they wont hesitate to just sign one letter. Let me know if it�s useful
armorgames.com. http://armorgames.com/play/
AbraKaDabra
12-21 12:31 PM
Flying thru Amsterdam and Milan doesn't require a transit visa
more...
armorgames.com. quot;Lovequot; on armorgames.com
nvmurali
06-02 08:25 PM
If Your Consulting Company is the negotiating then its good for you that you will be leaving on good terms. I would recommend you negotiate with them to File your 485 when PD available.
As far joining new Employer, you can only join them with H1B with 140 waiting status.
What does that mean? how can they file 485 when I'm not working for them? Also - What do you mean by with H1-B & 140 waiting?
As far joining new Employer, you can only join them with H1B with 140 waiting status.
What does that mean? how can they file 485 when I'm not working for them? Also - What do you mean by with H1-B & 140 waiting?
armorgames.com. armorgames.com/play/7598/
HV000
03-09 01:49 PM
Can somebody suggest/recommend a good immigration attorney in Chicago for filing G-28 and filing AC21? Thanks!!
more...
armorgames.com. http://armorgames.com/play
wellwishergc
07-13 10:41 AM
- Take an infopass appointment at your local immigration office to check her approval status; If it is showing approved you are fine; then you would just need to contact the customer service at USCIS service center to find out where her approval letter is.
- If her case is not approved, apply for EAD and AP if you have not done it already.
Her 485 has been filed FOUR years ago sir.
- If her case is not approved, apply for EAD and AP if you have not done it already.
Her 485 has been filed FOUR years ago sir.
armorgames.com. (http://armorgames.com/
krupa
07-09 12:29 PM
DOS issued one more bulletine today on 9th July 2007 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
armorgames.com. Play at: http://armorgames.com
paskal
02-22 06:35 PM
you cannot apply for an H4 until your waiver is complete
does not matter how long you are on a J1, once you get one, you are a marked man.
similarly there is no question of filing a 485, even if you could file it there cannot be an approval till the waiver is done, likely will be rejected.
do please ask an attorney though.
does not matter how long you are on a J1, once you get one, you are a marked man.
similarly there is no question of filing a 485, even if you could file it there cannot be an approval till the waiver is done, likely will be rejected.
do please ask an attorney though.
LostInGCProcess
10-24 01:18 PM
Are you sure it is 90 days, i think it is 180 days and above. Since visitor visa is 6 months max, most are not eligible to apply. After 9/11 my parents had to postpone their return by a month, we had a valid extension etc. My CPA told me that since i had filled out a sponsorship letter to support their visa application, it would create a hassle for my parents during reentry. I did not want to complicate things so i did not claim them.
My friend is a GC holder and he claims his parents as dependents when they stay for more than 180 days. He has had no issues so far. As far as i know, I have yet to see a case where people have run into issues for claiming parents as dependents.
It has to be 180 days. But you can give it a try...the worst case scenario is, IRS would reject the 'dependent' claim and you may have to pay whatever difference in tax..
I got it and my parents stayed for 5 months and 2 weeks. It was <180 days and IRS accepted it.
My friend is a GC holder and he claims his parents as dependents when they stay for more than 180 days. He has had no issues so far. As far as i know, I have yet to see a case where people have run into issues for claiming parents as dependents.
It has to be 180 days. But you can give it a try...the worst case scenario is, IRS would reject the 'dependent' claim and you may have to pay whatever difference in tax..
I got it and my parents stayed for 5 months and 2 weeks. It was <180 days and IRS accepted it.
needhelp!
10-23 05:59 PM
: b : u : m : p :
Please fill the gaps...
Please fill the gaps...
0 comments:
Post a Comment