rongha_2000
10-02 11:59 AM
My wife has a non-working SSN. Will she need to convert it (or apply for a new SSN) to working SSN once she starts working persuant to EAD?
Once you received your EAD card, you can apply for SSN.
Once you received your EAD card, you can apply for SSN.
mhathi
07-20 09:15 AM
I searched for IV on orkut and got three communities back, one with 2 members and two empty.. which one are we joining?
pappu
11-25 10:10 PM
Next year is also critical for our lobbying efforts with the new administration and going through the bill cycle all over again. For that it will be very helpful if members sign up for monthly contributions. The monthly contributions help us plan future events and lobby efforts.
I urge all new and old non contributing members to sign up for monthly contributions to strengthen your organization.
I urge all new and old non contributing members to sign up for monthly contributions to strengthen your organization.
ocpmachine
06-17 12:26 PM
Thanks yganreddy for your input. It might help.
In my case, the X Ray shows nothing - so I am all clear on that.
My concern is I don't how big the thing became after the test was done (twice). Once in 1997 when I first came from India and next in 1998 (when i worked in NY Preysbeterian Hosptal and they mandatorily tested for TB via skin test). I have asked for the reports from NY hospital and am hoping that it is less than 10 mm as the civil surgeon says that if the size is bigger than 10 mm, I will have to go through the treatment for TB (even though i have no evidence of active TB). I hope he is wrong.
I had another question. Can I get the reports from India, when i got the TB test done? I might have the papers at home and will have to search for it or does USCIS not consider the papers from India? I hear a sealed envelope is what is needed from a doctor. In that case, we might be able to try to get in touch with the doctor that did the test and ask for a sealed envelope (showing him the papers he gave us when we got the test done).
EB3June03,
Its upto the doctor's discretion to accept an old TB skin test(PPD), my doctor did not consider the old test results, she recommended taking a new PPD test as the test is a snapshot test which indicates the state as of the time of the test and you might be infected with TB since the last test.
Also, there is a new test as mentioned earlier called Quantiferone-Gold test (QFT-G) which provides better test of TB. However, this test is NOT certified by USCIS.
Just for clearing the doubt, you can take QFT_G test, if QFT-G result is +ve then you need to undergo treatment, if x-ray is clean and QFT result �ve you are clear of TB. My QFT-G came back as �ve and clean X-ray, however my 693 form was marked �Class B Latent� due to PPD result > 10mm, I am not taking treatment due to �ve QFT but keeping all the paperwork to respond in case of future RFE.
Disclaimer: I am not a Doctor/Lawyer.
In my case, the X Ray shows nothing - so I am all clear on that.
My concern is I don't how big the thing became after the test was done (twice). Once in 1997 when I first came from India and next in 1998 (when i worked in NY Preysbeterian Hosptal and they mandatorily tested for TB via skin test). I have asked for the reports from NY hospital and am hoping that it is less than 10 mm as the civil surgeon says that if the size is bigger than 10 mm, I will have to go through the treatment for TB (even though i have no evidence of active TB). I hope he is wrong.
I had another question. Can I get the reports from India, when i got the TB test done? I might have the papers at home and will have to search for it or does USCIS not consider the papers from India? I hear a sealed envelope is what is needed from a doctor. In that case, we might be able to try to get in touch with the doctor that did the test and ask for a sealed envelope (showing him the papers he gave us when we got the test done).
EB3June03,
Its upto the doctor's discretion to accept an old TB skin test(PPD), my doctor did not consider the old test results, she recommended taking a new PPD test as the test is a snapshot test which indicates the state as of the time of the test and you might be infected with TB since the last test.
Also, there is a new test as mentioned earlier called Quantiferone-Gold test (QFT-G) which provides better test of TB. However, this test is NOT certified by USCIS.
Just for clearing the doubt, you can take QFT_G test, if QFT-G result is +ve then you need to undergo treatment, if x-ray is clean and QFT result �ve you are clear of TB. My QFT-G came back as �ve and clean X-ray, however my 693 form was marked �Class B Latent� due to PPD result > 10mm, I am not taking treatment due to �ve QFT but keeping all the paperwork to respond in case of future RFE.
Disclaimer: I am not a Doctor/Lawyer.
more...
agc2005
12-25 03:48 PM
For me It took about 5 weeks. I think it may take about 30 to 90 days.
cool_guy_onnet1
06-01 01:49 PM
Hers's the SOURCE...
http://www.shusterman.com/toc-it.html#B
FIRST ITEM IN THE LIST
Let's fill the mailboxes over the weekend... I am driving to Atlantic city-- Worse the traffic, better for IV!! I will be calling for 3 full hours! Love my Blackberry 8800, fill in the numbers and just keep calling using "auto dial next feature"!
http://www.shusterman.com/toc-it.html#B
First ITEM in the list
http://www.shusterman.com/toc-it.html#B
FIRST ITEM IN THE LIST
Let's fill the mailboxes over the weekend... I am driving to Atlantic city-- Worse the traffic, better for IV!! I will be calling for 3 full hours! Love my Blackberry 8800, fill in the numbers and just keep calling using "auto dial next feature"!
http://www.shusterman.com/toc-it.html#B
First ITEM in the list
more...
newbie2020
05-18 07:42 AM
This one is an earlier bills introduced earlier ,This is similar to the bills being discussed
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110j4GOX5::
Since the text of this bill is similar to other bill should we try to get these law maker's support.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...vatorsAct.html
KENNEDY AND MCCAUL ANNOUNCE “NEW AMERICAN INNOVATORS ACT”
(Washington, DC) - Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) and Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) announced the introduction of the New American Innovators Act. The New American Innovators Act would exempt foreign students receiving Ph.D.’s from accredited, American universities from numerical immigration limits.
“The New American Innovators Act takes the best and the brightest and moves them to the front of the green card line,” said Congressman Patrick Kennedy. “The global competition for talent is getting fiercer with each passing year. Although we already have the most talented workforce in the world, we cannot sit idly by while other countries work to attract the best international talent – especially when those individuals have been educated in our universities. The New American Innovators Act targets the cream of the crop. These are individuals who will generate breakthroughs, start businesses, create jobs, and ultimately help to drive our economic growth for years to come. It is absurd that we would spend time and money educating them only to force them to go to our economic competitors, even if they want to stay.”
“We need to ensure that U.S. employers continue to create and stay on the ‘cutting-edge’ of the global market,” stated Congressman Michael McCaul. “I am proud to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to co-introduce this bill with Congressman Kennedy that will add to America’s economic strength by offering increased access to the best talent, no matter where they may be born. These individuals are the best and the brightest, having graduated from U.S. universities with doctorate degrees and are already present and working in America. These professionals add to our prosperity, by making enormous contributions to our economy. The last thing we want to do is force them to leave the country. ”
“We must continue to be committed to ensuring U.S. employers have the talent necessary to compete worldwide. Without the ability to retain them, we risk losing these hard-working, valued workers, who we have spent an enormous amount of funds training and educating to our national competitors abroad.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110j4GOX5::
Since the text of this bill is similar to other bill should we try to get these law maker's support.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...vatorsAct.html
KENNEDY AND MCCAUL ANNOUNCE “NEW AMERICAN INNOVATORS ACT”
(Washington, DC) - Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) and Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) announced the introduction of the New American Innovators Act. The New American Innovators Act would exempt foreign students receiving Ph.D.’s from accredited, American universities from numerical immigration limits.
“The New American Innovators Act takes the best and the brightest and moves them to the front of the green card line,” said Congressman Patrick Kennedy. “The global competition for talent is getting fiercer with each passing year. Although we already have the most talented workforce in the world, we cannot sit idly by while other countries work to attract the best international talent – especially when those individuals have been educated in our universities. The New American Innovators Act targets the cream of the crop. These are individuals who will generate breakthroughs, start businesses, create jobs, and ultimately help to drive our economic growth for years to come. It is absurd that we would spend time and money educating them only to force them to go to our economic competitors, even if they want to stay.”
“We need to ensure that U.S. employers continue to create and stay on the ‘cutting-edge’ of the global market,” stated Congressman Michael McCaul. “I am proud to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to co-introduce this bill with Congressman Kennedy that will add to America’s economic strength by offering increased access to the best talent, no matter where they may be born. These individuals are the best and the brightest, having graduated from U.S. universities with doctorate degrees and are already present and working in America. These professionals add to our prosperity, by making enormous contributions to our economy. The last thing we want to do is force them to leave the country. ”
“We must continue to be committed to ensuring U.S. employers have the talent necessary to compete worldwide. Without the ability to retain them, we risk losing these hard-working, valued workers, who we have spent an enormous amount of funds training and educating to our national competitors abroad.”
krishmunn
03-27 09:06 PM
this is not a game , this happened really to me .I am Indian .They did not gave my passport back . They took my passport and send me to Bangalore Airport back .I know they don't have any right to hold any one's property that too a country citizenship passport.I am looking for an answer and advice , not question for a question
In the link which you provided , you are talking about Pakistan and now you say you are from India/Bangalore. That is the first thing whcih proves that you are fake.
And most important, India does not allow someone to enter without Passport (or a travel document from consulate).
Guys, ignore this. OP is either an anti or just trying to make fun
In the link which you provided , you are talking about Pakistan and now you say you are from India/Bangalore. That is the first thing whcih proves that you are fake.
And most important, India does not allow someone to enter without Passport (or a travel document from consulate).
Guys, ignore this. OP is either an anti or just trying to make fun
more...
ab2k7
07-17 04:28 AM
Thanks desi3933,
The article here from Murthy specifies the solution in a different way and doesn't mention the need of filing LC or 140 again if the LC was properly filed as roving employee. Will have to confirm with attorney. Hope this would help ppl in similar situations.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_svcupd.html
I-485 Filing for Roving Employees
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS indicated that, if a roving employee's I-140 petition is filed with Service Center A where the company is headquartered, but the employee moves to Service Center B's jurisdiction before the I-485 is filed, the employee may file the I-485 with either Service Center A or Service Center B. The USCIS also noted, however, that if the I-140 petition is filed at Service Center A, and then the I-485 is filed with Service Center B, the I-485 must be held until the I-140 is adjudicated. It is not clear if this means no action will be taken or if it simply cannot be approved until the I-140 petition is adjudicated. Roving employees are those who do not have fixed work sites, but can be moved from location to location, depending upon the needs of the employer. This is common with IT contractors. The safer approach would be to file the I-140 petition and the I-485 application in the same Service Center to avoid additional delays or the need to transfer the file from one Service Center to another.
In this instance when ever a consultant or "roving employee" moves to another city/state an LCA amendment is to be filed to accomodate USCIS rules. Whether this would have any adverse effect on LC/140/485 as far as refiling/ RFEs later is still not clear. I'll keep looking around for more credible info regarding the same. Pls point out of you guys know of any.
Thanks again in advance.
The article here from Murthy specifies the solution in a different way and doesn't mention the need of filing LC or 140 again if the LC was properly filed as roving employee. Will have to confirm with attorney. Hope this would help ppl in similar situations.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_svcupd.html
I-485 Filing for Roving Employees
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS indicated that, if a roving employee's I-140 petition is filed with Service Center A where the company is headquartered, but the employee moves to Service Center B's jurisdiction before the I-485 is filed, the employee may file the I-485 with either Service Center A or Service Center B. The USCIS also noted, however, that if the I-140 petition is filed at Service Center A, and then the I-485 is filed with Service Center B, the I-485 must be held until the I-140 is adjudicated. It is not clear if this means no action will be taken or if it simply cannot be approved until the I-140 petition is adjudicated. Roving employees are those who do not have fixed work sites, but can be moved from location to location, depending upon the needs of the employer. This is common with IT contractors. The safer approach would be to file the I-140 petition and the I-485 application in the same Service Center to avoid additional delays or the need to transfer the file from one Service Center to another.
In this instance when ever a consultant or "roving employee" moves to another city/state an LCA amendment is to be filed to accomodate USCIS rules. Whether this would have any adverse effect on LC/140/485 as far as refiling/ RFEs later is still not clear. I'll keep looking around for more credible info regarding the same. Pls point out of you guys know of any.
Thanks again in advance.
harrydr
01-06 08:05 AM
Please advise if 5.5+ years of experience and an Advanced degree in Electronics would qualify me for porting me from EB2 to EB1. I have been waiting to file for my I-140 over an year now but things aren't looking anywhere near to it.
So just wanted to understand if this was even legally possible.
So just wanted to understand if this was even legally possible.
more...
same_old_guy
02-20 06:53 PM
invincibleasian :
Could you please share your experience with FOIA application for I-140. Did you finally get the copy ?
Also, what all document you need to apply for it ?
I am planning to do that since my employer denied me for getting I-140 copy.
Appreciate your resposne.
Could you please share your experience with FOIA application for I-140. Did you finally get the copy ?
Also, what all document you need to apply for it ?
I am planning to do that since my employer denied me for getting I-140 copy.
Appreciate your resposne.
susie
07-13 09:32 PM
Hi:
Why and how do members get those green and red squares when they post messages? I do know red squares are bad since a mouseover shows the text that the member has had some bad behavior. However, I have seen various texts for green squares. Mine says "I'm on a distinguised road"...I had no idea I was on one, but I sure do hope it ends with a Green Card in hand! :)
Anyway, does anyone know all the different variations of text for green and red squares and how do they change for different members?
Thanks,
Jayant
Now I am curious to see if I have any so making this post to check
Why and how do members get those green and red squares when they post messages? I do know red squares are bad since a mouseover shows the text that the member has had some bad behavior. However, I have seen various texts for green squares. Mine says "I'm on a distinguised road"...I had no idea I was on one, but I sure do hope it ends with a Green Card in hand! :)
Anyway, does anyone know all the different variations of text for green and red squares and how do they change for different members?
Thanks,
Jayant
Now I am curious to see if I have any so making this post to check
more...
masterji
05-18 12:31 PM
If this passes this will be awesome for Ph.D. graduates.
chanduv23
07-06 09:49 PM
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
Issuing RFE or not is an individual decision taken by the officer. In most cases, RFE is issued when 140 gets revoked because an underlying job offer is a necessity. Even if you sent AC21 letter, as long as your 140 is still intact, the officer may chose not to issue an RFE.
Some people have received RFEs in more than one ocassion. Once when 140 was revoked and once during preadjudication process. So if for some reason USCIS decides to do a second round of preadjudication just because they have not other work or any specific reason then we may expect RFEs (This is something I made up - I don't think there will be another round of preadjudication.
Informing USCIS in advance helps rarely but maybe useful at times if you know your 140 could potentially be revoked and in a lot of cases 485 gets deined as a result. The MTR filing process can include a communication trail about informing USCIS which could be of help.
Cheers
Kris
Issuing RFE or not is an individual decision taken by the officer. In most cases, RFE is issued when 140 gets revoked because an underlying job offer is a necessity. Even if you sent AC21 letter, as long as your 140 is still intact, the officer may chose not to issue an RFE.
Some people have received RFEs in more than one ocassion. Once when 140 was revoked and once during preadjudication process. So if for some reason USCIS decides to do a second round of preadjudication just because they have not other work or any specific reason then we may expect RFEs (This is something I made up - I don't think there will be another round of preadjudication.
Informing USCIS in advance helps rarely but maybe useful at times if you know your 140 could potentially be revoked and in a lot of cases 485 gets deined as a result. The MTR filing process can include a communication trail about informing USCIS which could be of help.
more...
espoir
06-21 05:56 AM
As per my understanding, once you have a receipt notice for EAD and/or AP, it will be processed completely. Approval/rejection of EAD/AP is NOT linked with visa number availability. Many are under the misconception that they won't get their EAD and AP if the PD dates move back.
Given the current and anticipated volume, one should expect delays in processing times.
IN the same context, how about EAD.
If I file I-485 and lets say the dates retrogess and my PD is not current, then as mentioned and if an EAD is not yet issued does the EAD issuance and I-485 both are "suspended" till PD becomes current or is it just the I-485...
I guess what I want to ask is that is EAD linked to PD date ?
Given the current and anticipated volume, one should expect delays in processing times.
IN the same context, how about EAD.
If I file I-485 and lets say the dates retrogess and my PD is not current, then as mentioned and if an EAD is not yet issued does the EAD issuance and I-485 both are "suspended" till PD becomes current or is it just the I-485...
I guess what I want to ask is that is EAD linked to PD date ?
wandmaker
11-05 09:10 PM
You dont need to pay the fees, as it is USCIS mistake - Send the new application form with a cover letter, you can send it yourself.
Now my Lawyer is advising me to include the old fees and a new application with a letter stating motion to refile seeking correction. He is insisting on us to send the fees ($350) again. Any suggestions? Can I send it directly to INS?
Now my Lawyer is advising me to include the old fees and a new application with a letter stating motion to refile seeking correction. He is insisting on us to send the fees ($350) again. Any suggestions? Can I send it directly to INS?
more...
bsbawa10
08-21 10:23 AM
You must ask the badge number and note down the time of each call. Then file a complaint if you are not satisfied with the customer service experience.
Once we have a proof of hundreds of such written complaints, IV can also follow up. We need people to file 'written' complaints in order to help improve the service.
I do not have any ID (She spoke that too quickly) but I know the time (8 am cst) and I am prepared to give the written complaint.
Once we have a proof of hundreds of such written complaints, IV can also follow up. We need people to file 'written' complaints in order to help improve the service.
I do not have any ID (She spoke that too quickly) but I know the time (8 am cst) and I am prepared to give the written complaint.
eb3_nepa
04-13 08:41 PM
The following doc, 'How the senate bill becomes a law' does not mention any waiting period after President's sign the bill to become a law
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/legprocessflowchart.pdf
My point exactly.
So then maybe the wait is only the 3 months (90 days) that Sen Sessions wishes to impose, correct?
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/legprocessflowchart.pdf
My point exactly.
So then maybe the wait is only the 3 months (90 days) that Sen Sessions wishes to impose, correct?
leoindiano
07-09 11:55 AM
Upgraded to premium processing on June 19th. No news so far....No update on uscis website whatsoever....
Anybody in same boaT?
Anybody in same boaT?
waltz
08-24 02:05 PM
I'm sorry if this has been posted before, but the show is based on the following study:
************************************************
Kauffman Foundation Study Points to �Brain-Drain� of Skilled U.S. Immigrant Entrepreneurs to Home Country
Contacts:
Barbara Pruitt, 816-932-1288, bpruitt@kauffman.org, Kauffman Foundation
Tom Phillips, 212-935-4655, comptwp@aol.com, Communication Partners
More than a million skilled foreign nationals in the United States, including doctors and scientists, face mounting visa backlog
(KANSAS CITY, Mo.) Aug. 22, 2007 � More than one million skilled immigrant workers, including scientists, engineers, doctors and researchers and their families, are competing for 120,000 permanent U.S. resident visas each year, creating a sizeable imbalance likely to fuel a �reverse brain-drain� with skilled workers returning to their home country, according to a new report released today by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
The situation is even bleaker as the number of employment visas issued to immigrants from any single country is less than 10,000 per year with a wait time of several years.
�The United States benefits from having foreign-born innovators create their ideas in this country,� said Vivek Wadhwa, Wertheim fellow with the Harvard Law School and executive in residence at Duke University. �Their departures would be detrimental to U.S. economic well-being. And, when foreigners come to the United States, collaborate with Americans in developing and patenting new ideas, and employ those ideas in business in ways they could not readily do in their home countries, the world benefits.�
Conducted by researchers at Duke University, New York University and Harvard University, the study is the third in a series of studies focusing on immigrants� contributions to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Earlier research revealed a dramatic increase in the contributions of foreign nationals to U.S. intellectual property over an eight-year period.
In this study, "Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain-Drain," researchers offer a more refined measure of this rise in contributions of foreign nationals to U.S. intellectual property and seek to explain this increase with an analysis of the immigrant-visa backlog for skilled workers. The key finding from this research is that the number of skilled workers waiting for visas is significantly larger than the number that can be admitted to the United States. This imbalance creates the potential for a sizeable reverse brain-drain from the United States to the skilled workers� home countries.
The earlier studies, �America�s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs� and �Entrepreneurship, Education and Immigration: America�s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part II,� documented that one in four engineering and technology companies founded between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant founder. Researchers found that these companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Indian immigrants founded more companies than the next four groups (from the United Kingdom, China, Taiwan and Japan) combined.
Furthermore, these companies� founders tended to be highly educated in science, technology, math and engineering-related disciplines, with 96 percent holding bachelor�s degrees and 75 percent holding master�s or PhD degrees.
Among key findings in the most recent report:
Foreign nationals residing in the United States were named as inventors or co-inventors in 25.6 percent of international patent applications filed from the United States in 2006. This represents an increase from 7.6 percent in 1998.
Foreign nationals contributed to more than half of the international patents filed by a number of large, multi-national companies, including Qualcomm (72 percent), Merck & Co. (65 percent), General Electric (64 percent), Siemens (63 percent) and Cisco (60 percent). Forty-one percent of the patents filed by the U.S. government had foreign nationals as inventors or co-inventors.
In 2006, 16.8 percent of international patent applications from the United States had an inventor or co-inventor with a Chinese-heritage name, representing an increase from 11.2 percent in 1998. The contribution of inventors with Indian-heritage names increased to 13.7 percent from 9.5 percent in the same period.
The total number of employment-based principals in the employment-based categories and their family members waiting for legal permanent residence in the United States in 2006 was estimated at 1,055,084. Additionally, there are an estimated 126,421 residents abroad also waiting for employment-based U.S. legal permanent residence, adding up to a worldwide total of 1,181,505.
Using data from the New Immigrant Survey, the authors find that, in 2003, approximately one in five new legal immigrants in the United States and about one in three employment-based new legal immigrants either planned to leave the United States or were uncertain about remaining. The authors had no data on how many foreign nationals have actually returned to their homelands.
�Given that the U.S. comparative advantage in the global economy is in creating knowledge and applying it to business, it behooves the country to consider how we might adjust policies to reduce the immigration backlog, encourage innovative foreign minds to remain in the country, and entice new innovators to come,� said Robert Litan, vice president of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation.
About the research team
For more information about the Global Engineering and Entrepreneurship research at Duke University, visit http://www.globalizationresearch.com; visit http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/ to learn about Harvard Law�s Labor and Worklife Program; and visit http://www.nyu.edu/ for more information about New York University.
Read the report
************************************************
Kauffman Foundation Study Points to �Brain-Drain� of Skilled U.S. Immigrant Entrepreneurs to Home Country
Contacts:
Barbara Pruitt, 816-932-1288, bpruitt@kauffman.org, Kauffman Foundation
Tom Phillips, 212-935-4655, comptwp@aol.com, Communication Partners
More than a million skilled foreign nationals in the United States, including doctors and scientists, face mounting visa backlog
(KANSAS CITY, Mo.) Aug. 22, 2007 � More than one million skilled immigrant workers, including scientists, engineers, doctors and researchers and their families, are competing for 120,000 permanent U.S. resident visas each year, creating a sizeable imbalance likely to fuel a �reverse brain-drain� with skilled workers returning to their home country, according to a new report released today by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
The situation is even bleaker as the number of employment visas issued to immigrants from any single country is less than 10,000 per year with a wait time of several years.
�The United States benefits from having foreign-born innovators create their ideas in this country,� said Vivek Wadhwa, Wertheim fellow with the Harvard Law School and executive in residence at Duke University. �Their departures would be detrimental to U.S. economic well-being. And, when foreigners come to the United States, collaborate with Americans in developing and patenting new ideas, and employ those ideas in business in ways they could not readily do in their home countries, the world benefits.�
Conducted by researchers at Duke University, New York University and Harvard University, the study is the third in a series of studies focusing on immigrants� contributions to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Earlier research revealed a dramatic increase in the contributions of foreign nationals to U.S. intellectual property over an eight-year period.
In this study, "Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain-Drain," researchers offer a more refined measure of this rise in contributions of foreign nationals to U.S. intellectual property and seek to explain this increase with an analysis of the immigrant-visa backlog for skilled workers. The key finding from this research is that the number of skilled workers waiting for visas is significantly larger than the number that can be admitted to the United States. This imbalance creates the potential for a sizeable reverse brain-drain from the United States to the skilled workers� home countries.
The earlier studies, �America�s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs� and �Entrepreneurship, Education and Immigration: America�s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part II,� documented that one in four engineering and technology companies founded between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant founder. Researchers found that these companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Indian immigrants founded more companies than the next four groups (from the United Kingdom, China, Taiwan and Japan) combined.
Furthermore, these companies� founders tended to be highly educated in science, technology, math and engineering-related disciplines, with 96 percent holding bachelor�s degrees and 75 percent holding master�s or PhD degrees.
Among key findings in the most recent report:
Foreign nationals residing in the United States were named as inventors or co-inventors in 25.6 percent of international patent applications filed from the United States in 2006. This represents an increase from 7.6 percent in 1998.
Foreign nationals contributed to more than half of the international patents filed by a number of large, multi-national companies, including Qualcomm (72 percent), Merck & Co. (65 percent), General Electric (64 percent), Siemens (63 percent) and Cisco (60 percent). Forty-one percent of the patents filed by the U.S. government had foreign nationals as inventors or co-inventors.
In 2006, 16.8 percent of international patent applications from the United States had an inventor or co-inventor with a Chinese-heritage name, representing an increase from 11.2 percent in 1998. The contribution of inventors with Indian-heritage names increased to 13.7 percent from 9.5 percent in the same period.
The total number of employment-based principals in the employment-based categories and their family members waiting for legal permanent residence in the United States in 2006 was estimated at 1,055,084. Additionally, there are an estimated 126,421 residents abroad also waiting for employment-based U.S. legal permanent residence, adding up to a worldwide total of 1,181,505.
Using data from the New Immigrant Survey, the authors find that, in 2003, approximately one in five new legal immigrants in the United States and about one in three employment-based new legal immigrants either planned to leave the United States or were uncertain about remaining. The authors had no data on how many foreign nationals have actually returned to their homelands.
�Given that the U.S. comparative advantage in the global economy is in creating knowledge and applying it to business, it behooves the country to consider how we might adjust policies to reduce the immigration backlog, encourage innovative foreign minds to remain in the country, and entice new innovators to come,� said Robert Litan, vice president of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation.
About the research team
For more information about the Global Engineering and Entrepreneurship research at Duke University, visit http://www.globalizationresearch.com; visit http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/ to learn about Harvard Law�s Labor and Worklife Program; and visit http://www.nyu.edu/ for more information about New York University.
Read the report
BharatPremi
09-24 11:35 AM
Man why you need reciepts?
First of all those receipts are Applicant's (Employee's) property so I believe, if something is my property I MUST have it with me... Period. Now one thoughful reason is that, during the whole damn process, if you are not satisfied with the action taken by your lawyer and you want to change your attorney then having receipts with you would make your life easy then. Actually my attorney is really good and I do not see this coming but hey, if you have your originals with you it is better. Another reason is that suppose say in future, if you have to plan for Emergency travel outside, you would not have to plan waiting for receipts coming from your attorney then.
First of all those receipts are Applicant's (Employee's) property so I believe, if something is my property I MUST have it with me... Period. Now one thoughful reason is that, during the whole damn process, if you are not satisfied with the action taken by your lawyer and you want to change your attorney then having receipts with you would make your life easy then. Actually my attorney is really good and I do not see this coming but hey, if you have your originals with you it is better. Another reason is that suppose say in future, if you have to plan for Emergency travel outside, you would not have to plan waiting for receipts coming from your attorney then.
No comments:
Post a Comment