diptam
07-06 10:20 AM
Nixstor,
AILA's publication itself said that checks were not done... Its evident on also. If you refrain from spicing up things its never going to come up in media. Who cares if 500 mm immigrants are backlogged ?
You are saying that authorities will take retaliatory measures for saying something that really bad happened. Then dont even talk about lawsuit etc... Do you think a lawsuit aginst USCIS/DOS is going to please them very much ???
Take either Boat1 or Boat2 -- Please do not sail keeping your foot in two boats. I apologize if i sound aggressive but it is what it is. Doing a work
in weekend of 48 hours (consuming 25000 visas) which takes even more
than 48 days definitely involves bypassing CRITICAL checks !!
Truth is a truth - neither you or me or anyone can alter it.
Thanks!
What the hell on earth is this? Do you know for sure they have ignored it? Do not add masala to the existing crap. Do you understand the consequences of these kind of spiced up stuff? We all would be sulking in the security check for ever, if DHS gets pissed off or gets a congressional hearing and the authorities get lambasted over this. You are seeing how doctors are being implicated in UK and all over. Security is the most important thing right now on this planet and western world is agog over security. I dont know from where Greg Siskind and Jay Solomon got the tip off. They tipped each of their hats off and put the story in our brains to run the show. Security is not a Joke. Do not make it a bigger issue unless you dont know whether it really has happened. The consequences can be pretty dangerous to the extent of revoking all the issued GC's in the past 20 days, if congress gets high on this. I dont know what lawyers want, but my understanding is none of us want to have negative consequences of this issue.
No matter who screwed up, we should be conveying the following message after we say that USCIS/DOS goofed up.
"The root cause of the situation is the inability of
a) DOS/USCIS to recapture the visa numbers from previous years
b) to carry forward the unused numbers for atleast one year
If congress makes the needed legislative changes to solve the above two issues, USCIS/DOS will not be in the ugliest predicaments like they are in right now"
Its our choice to make USCIS/DOS our enemies or we get compassionate to the situation considering how arcane the current laws are. We agree or not, we have to work with them going forward. Just that they are down and we are on a bashing spree right now doesnt mean that it will be situation for ever.
AILA's publication itself said that checks were not done... Its evident on also. If you refrain from spicing up things its never going to come up in media. Who cares if 500 mm immigrants are backlogged ?
You are saying that authorities will take retaliatory measures for saying something that really bad happened. Then dont even talk about lawsuit etc... Do you think a lawsuit aginst USCIS/DOS is going to please them very much ???
Take either Boat1 or Boat2 -- Please do not sail keeping your foot in two boats. I apologize if i sound aggressive but it is what it is. Doing a work
in weekend of 48 hours (consuming 25000 visas) which takes even more
than 48 days definitely involves bypassing CRITICAL checks !!
Truth is a truth - neither you or me or anyone can alter it.
Thanks!
What the hell on earth is this? Do you know for sure they have ignored it? Do not add masala to the existing crap. Do you understand the consequences of these kind of spiced up stuff? We all would be sulking in the security check for ever, if DHS gets pissed off or gets a congressional hearing and the authorities get lambasted over this. You are seeing how doctors are being implicated in UK and all over. Security is the most important thing right now on this planet and western world is agog over security. I dont know from where Greg Siskind and Jay Solomon got the tip off. They tipped each of their hats off and put the story in our brains to run the show. Security is not a Joke. Do not make it a bigger issue unless you dont know whether it really has happened. The consequences can be pretty dangerous to the extent of revoking all the issued GC's in the past 20 days, if congress gets high on this. I dont know what lawyers want, but my understanding is none of us want to have negative consequences of this issue.
No matter who screwed up, we should be conveying the following message after we say that USCIS/DOS goofed up.
"The root cause of the situation is the inability of
a) DOS/USCIS to recapture the visa numbers from previous years
b) to carry forward the unused numbers for atleast one year
If congress makes the needed legislative changes to solve the above two issues, USCIS/DOS will not be in the ugliest predicaments like they are in right now"
Its our choice to make USCIS/DOS our enemies or we get compassionate to the situation considering how arcane the current laws are. We agree or not, we have to work with them going forward. Just that they are down and we are on a bashing spree right now doesnt mean that it will be situation for ever.
wallpaper Pakistani dresses For Girls
diptam
08-08 11:00 AM
Lets all try to send this letter. I'm working with my HR to get this 7001 out - As Pappu said there should not be any reason why HR wont sign that form.
What's going on at NSC or TSC is Shame.... Peoples who applied in AUG-SEP 07 has got 140 approved at NSC where as folks back in APR-JUNE 07 is stuck and more over NSC claims that they are processing MAR 22 07 for last 5 months.
This deserves attention - I'm trying to ratchet up some pressure via Congressman and Senator's office but they are very busy these days with Presidential election , so i'm not getting the kind of help that they generally do.
FYI:
Here is a quote from an email i received from the Ombudsman's office:
"Our office is in fact at this time actively probing the I-140 situation you describe generally."
This was in response to an e-mail i sent them, describing the situation (my wife's I-140 from April 2008 got approved before mine, which was submitted, you guessed it, on July 2007)
So maybe there's some hope here, who knows.
What's going on at NSC or TSC is Shame.... Peoples who applied in AUG-SEP 07 has got 140 approved at NSC where as folks back in APR-JUNE 07 is stuck and more over NSC claims that they are processing MAR 22 07 for last 5 months.
This deserves attention - I'm trying to ratchet up some pressure via Congressman and Senator's office but they are very busy these days with Presidential election , so i'm not getting the kind of help that they generally do.
FYI:
Here is a quote from an email i received from the Ombudsman's office:
"Our office is in fact at this time actively probing the I-140 situation you describe generally."
This was in response to an e-mail i sent them, describing the situation (my wife's I-140 from April 2008 got approved before mine, which was submitted, you guessed it, on July 2007)
So maybe there's some hope here, who knows.
pcs
07-05 10:17 AM
I will email it you. Send me a PM
Actual copy of WSJ & Congresswoman made all the difference in the reaction of the office staff
Actual copy of WSJ & Congresswoman made all the difference in the reaction of the office staff
2011 designing dresses for girls.
aadimanav
12-10 03:37 PM
Source:
Visa Bulletin for January 2010 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4597.html)
WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL CUT-OFF DATES FOR FOREIGN STATES IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIRST OR SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORIES?
At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preferences. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand, and each has the potential to become "unavailable" should demand cause the annual limit for that category to be reached.
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. For example, if it is determined that based on the level of demand being received at that time there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category, then numbers could be provided to oversubscribed countries without regard to per-country limitations. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
Should Section 202(a)(5) be applied, the rate of number use in the Employment preference category would continue to be monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for oversubscribed countries. This action provides the best possible assurance that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while still ensuring that numbers remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY-2010?
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: July through October 2005
India: February through early March 2005
If Section 202(a)(5)were to apply:
China and India: October through December 2005
Employment Third:
Worldwide: April through August 2005
China: June through September 2003
India: January through February 2002
Mexico: January through June 2004
Philippines: April through August 2005
Please be advised that the above date ranges are only estimates which are subject to fluctuations in demand during the coming months. The actual future cut-off dates cannot be guaranteed, and it is possible that some annual limits could be reached prior to the end of the fiscal year.
Visa Bulletin for January 2010 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4597.html)
WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL CUT-OFF DATES FOR FOREIGN STATES IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIRST OR SECOND PREFERENCE CATEGORIES?
At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preferences. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand, and each has the potential to become "unavailable" should demand cause the annual limit for that category to be reached.
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. For example, if it is determined that based on the level of demand being received at that time there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category, then numbers could be provided to oversubscribed countries without regard to per-country limitations. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
Should Section 202(a)(5) be applied, the rate of number use in the Employment preference category would continue to be monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for oversubscribed countries. This action provides the best possible assurance that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while still ensuring that numbers remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY-2010?
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: July through October 2005
India: February through early March 2005
If Section 202(a)(5)were to apply:
China and India: October through December 2005
Employment Third:
Worldwide: April through August 2005
China: June through September 2003
India: January through February 2002
Mexico: January through June 2004
Philippines: April through August 2005
Please be advised that the above date ranges are only estimates which are subject to fluctuations in demand during the coming months. The actual future cut-off dates cannot be guaranteed, and it is possible that some annual limits could be reached prior to the end of the fiscal year.
more...
pappu
11-20 10:13 PM
Work in progress; comments welcome.
.
Thanks for the effort. All pls send PMs to jimi if you have comments.
.
Thanks for the effort. All pls send PMs to jimi if you have comments.
gk_2000
08-23 01:09 PM
Not everyone has the luxury to go to home country to work for one year. Its like telling the Eb3 person to port to EB2. Do you accept that. There are so many issues need to be factored in. So lets not get into something which is not fair or not possible for every one. They system is f*&ked up. thats the fact. When the system is not fair, we fight to fix and not finding the loopholes.
There is a difference, my friend. Porting to EB2 means you have to spend LOTS of $$$ and time and effort to get masters degree.
No matter how you look at it, it is not wise to hack away at any door that's open to all. We should look at expanding our vistas, not shrink it. What if I tell you I am thinking of starting up a co in India, so some day I can make it here using the EB1 route? Why do you want to prevent me from availing this opportunity and making my sacrifices -- just because you feel it will help YOU move forward by ONE INCH?
There is a difference, my friend. Porting to EB2 means you have to spend LOTS of $$$ and time and effort to get masters degree.
No matter how you look at it, it is not wise to hack away at any door that's open to all. We should look at expanding our vistas, not shrink it. What if I tell you I am thinking of starting up a co in India, so some day I can make it here using the EB1 route? Why do you want to prevent me from availing this opportunity and making my sacrifices -- just because you feel it will help YOU move forward by ONE INCH?
more...
sampath
04-25 01:38 PM
The priority date based on the person first entering the US on H1B visa, or converting to a H1 status from any other visa status in the US is an excellent one.
This eliminates all the issues that H1Bs face today when applying for a GC. Employer portability, Visa retrogression etc ( and not to mention employer manipulation of H1Bs workers in delaying to file GCs ) are applied in fairness to everyone. This takes the fear out of H1B workers to change jobs at will without regard to negative impact on their pending GC applications..
Way to go.. Why can't IV propose to add this one liner to any of the impending amendments or find another lawmaker to support this which can alleviate most issues faced by H1Bs today.
This eliminates all the issues that H1Bs face today when applying for a GC. Employer portability, Visa retrogression etc ( and not to mention employer manipulation of H1Bs workers in delaying to file GCs ) are applied in fairness to everyone. This takes the fear out of H1B workers to change jobs at will without regard to negative impact on their pending GC applications..
Way to go.. Why can't IV propose to add this one liner to any of the impending amendments or find another lawmaker to support this which can alleviate most issues faced by H1Bs today.
2010 Pakistani Girls Dresses,
DreamGC
07-15 07:38 PM
Just sent my high five via billpay
EB3-I (Jan-2007)
EB3-I (Jan-2007)
more...
ArkBird
08-12 03:10 PM
Am I the only one here feeling like being used as toilet paper waiting to get flushed with other "stuff" ??
hair clothing for girls that I
beppenyc
03-02 04:38 PM
ok, one day is gone, now what`s will happen??
more...
santb1975
05-24 01:44 PM
:confused:
hot design; Girls Clothing
geesee
08-20 11:35 PM
Here in NJ(at least in Somerville), they ask for H1B approval notice. No need to have the visa stamped on passport.
more...
house designing dresses for girls.
NKR
09-10 11:20 AM
Just curious, is it possible they have some reasoning to push applications to the end of the year? it'll be interesting to think of what could be the reason...
There is no reason for this madness, stop analysing, it will drive you crazy..
There is no reason for this madness, stop analysing, it will drive you crazy..
tattoo product:girls dress
billu
09-13 08:22 AM
i had heard a lot of ppl everywhere talk abt "new numbers will be available from oct.".....due to fiscal year starting.....now that oct visa bulletin is out and there are no EB3 numbers for india as "current"....did they mean november visa bulletin which will release mid october?......or is bridge amendment the only hope for us Schedule A professionals now?
more...
pictures Full Service Custom Design and
chanduv23
10-17 10:31 AM
pd_recap and nk2006 - thanks for the initiatives - we will keep improving this effort in every possible way.
Those who invoked AC21 - those who plan to invoke and those who do not plan to invoke must all work towards this. Who knows? A lot of people will be forced to invoke AC21 in future in this economy.
So please take this seriously.
Those who invoked AC21 - those who plan to invoke and those who do not plan to invoke must all work towards this. Who knows? A lot of people will be forced to invoke AC21 in future in this economy.
So please take this seriously.
dresses Tiffany Designs Girls
Jimi_Hendrix
11-20 09:49 PM
Got legal immigration?
Joe Adams holds on to his coffee cup while he anxiously reads the immigration news headlines on Google. The democrats have just won control in Washington and like all immigrants; Joe is hopeful that some immigration reform will emerge.
Joe, a native of United Kingdom first came to the United States in 1998. After graduating from Harvard Business School with an MBA he got his dream job in supply chain management. It was not long after that Joe’s company filed for his permanent residency. Life moved on and soon Joe and his wife Kathy had their first child. “The year was 2003” reminisces Joe, “I was really beginning to understand the U.S. immigration process. I was getting a handle on the numerous loops that lay ahead. It was soon apparent to me that immigration was no walk in the garden”.
Of the 940,000 legal immigrants in 2004, only 16% were skilled employment-based immigrants. About 40% of these skilled immigrants had advanced degrees, or 5 or more years of experience after a baccalaureate degree. The impact of these workers’ contributions to American competitiveness belies their small number. They add to the process of scientific discovery, technology development, and innovation, which in turn leads to greater productivity growth. Current immigration policy is abetting brain drain and forcing many of these immigrants to leave for countries like Canada and United Kingdom where skilled immigrants are given priority over undocumented and family-based immigrants.
Legal Immigration, Rewarding?
“Most importantly legal immigration has to be rewarding for legal residents and create a shining example for all other immigrants”, remarks Joe Adams. In the United States, all immigration reform for highly skilled immigrants is bundled with reform for undocumented workers. This phenomenon is representative of the apathy of U.S. immigration policy towards highly skilled legal immigrants. Many of them have advanced degrees in science and technology. They have trained and honed their skills while working in U.S. companies.
Currently permanent residency applications for skilled, employment based immigrants are backed 5-8 years. In the interim applicants are unable to change jobs, get promotions or make any major financial decisions. Highly skilled, legal immigrants need immigration reforms that will reduce massive process backlogs, improve processing by government agencies and better the quality of life while the application is pending.
Legal Immigration Myths
Extremist, anti-immigration advocacy groups have aggressively publicized myths about legal, skilled immigrants. Let us expound some of the common myths about employment based immigration.
Myth: Increasing green cards will enable more new immigrants to enter the country
Fact: Most immigrants who are caught in the employment-based immigration backlog have already spent 5-10 years in the United States. They have integrated socially and culturally. Companies have spent thousands of dollars on training these workers.
Myth: Employment based immigrants do not pay taxes and are a social burden
Fact: Employment based immigrants are required by law to file for federal and state tax returns each year. They pay social security taxes, medicare taxes, payroll taxes and all other applicable taxes. Employment based immigrants are not eligible to receive social security benefits unless their permanent residency applications are approved or unless they have worked in the U.S. for several years.
Myth: Employment based immigrants take away local jobs
Fact: Most progressive Americans realize that educated immigrant workers play a crucial role in stimulating the local economy. Highly skilled immigration fills the gaps in availability and makes the U.S. economy competitive and resilient. A recent study concludes that immigrants have fueled the US entrepreneurial economy, starting one in four venture-backed companies since 1990 and two in five in high technology. This is according to a study released by the National Venture Capital Association trade group to the U.S. Congress in November 2006.
Myth: H1B quota increase will result in more green cards
Fact: H1B has a separate quota from green card quotas. Even after an individual has approved security check, labor certification and employment eligibility; a visa number must be available for him to receive a green card. This quota is subject to annual numerical limits. Based on the current annual visa limit, applications are backlogged 6 years.
Future of Legal Immigration
It is presumed that legal immigration process works efficiently and in a clockwork fashion. However when you consider that legal applicants have to wait 5-8 years for a green card; this statement is false. In the current political environment pro and anti immigrant extremism exist side by side. A rational, middle of the road approach is largely missing. Such an approach would prioritize immigration based on the contribution of immigrants towards economic growth, the reduction of job outsourcing and most importantly rewarding those who chose to enter and continue to reside legally in USA.
Americans largely supports legal immigration. This year, the Secure Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership Bill was introduced in Senate and in the House of Representatives. This bill provides the much needed immigration reforms for highly skilled immigrants. However the democrat leadership has not yet declared immigration on their agenda for the first 100 hours of work. Unless congress collectively passes immigration relief for skilled workers, political considerations for the 2008 presidential elections will put this issue on the back burner again.
Joe Adams holds on to his coffee cup while he anxiously reads the immigration news headlines on Google. The democrats have just won control in Washington and like all immigrants; Joe is hopeful that some immigration reform will emerge.
Joe, a native of United Kingdom first came to the United States in 1998. After graduating from Harvard Business School with an MBA he got his dream job in supply chain management. It was not long after that Joe’s company filed for his permanent residency. Life moved on and soon Joe and his wife Kathy had their first child. “The year was 2003” reminisces Joe, “I was really beginning to understand the U.S. immigration process. I was getting a handle on the numerous loops that lay ahead. It was soon apparent to me that immigration was no walk in the garden”.
Of the 940,000 legal immigrants in 2004, only 16% were skilled employment-based immigrants. About 40% of these skilled immigrants had advanced degrees, or 5 or more years of experience after a baccalaureate degree. The impact of these workers’ contributions to American competitiveness belies their small number. They add to the process of scientific discovery, technology development, and innovation, which in turn leads to greater productivity growth. Current immigration policy is abetting brain drain and forcing many of these immigrants to leave for countries like Canada and United Kingdom where skilled immigrants are given priority over undocumented and family-based immigrants.
Legal Immigration, Rewarding?
“Most importantly legal immigration has to be rewarding for legal residents and create a shining example for all other immigrants”, remarks Joe Adams. In the United States, all immigration reform for highly skilled immigrants is bundled with reform for undocumented workers. This phenomenon is representative of the apathy of U.S. immigration policy towards highly skilled legal immigrants. Many of them have advanced degrees in science and technology. They have trained and honed their skills while working in U.S. companies.
Currently permanent residency applications for skilled, employment based immigrants are backed 5-8 years. In the interim applicants are unable to change jobs, get promotions or make any major financial decisions. Highly skilled, legal immigrants need immigration reforms that will reduce massive process backlogs, improve processing by government agencies and better the quality of life while the application is pending.
Legal Immigration Myths
Extremist, anti-immigration advocacy groups have aggressively publicized myths about legal, skilled immigrants. Let us expound some of the common myths about employment based immigration.
Myth: Increasing green cards will enable more new immigrants to enter the country
Fact: Most immigrants who are caught in the employment-based immigration backlog have already spent 5-10 years in the United States. They have integrated socially and culturally. Companies have spent thousands of dollars on training these workers.
Myth: Employment based immigrants do not pay taxes and are a social burden
Fact: Employment based immigrants are required by law to file for federal and state tax returns each year. They pay social security taxes, medicare taxes, payroll taxes and all other applicable taxes. Employment based immigrants are not eligible to receive social security benefits unless their permanent residency applications are approved or unless they have worked in the U.S. for several years.
Myth: Employment based immigrants take away local jobs
Fact: Most progressive Americans realize that educated immigrant workers play a crucial role in stimulating the local economy. Highly skilled immigration fills the gaps in availability and makes the U.S. economy competitive and resilient. A recent study concludes that immigrants have fueled the US entrepreneurial economy, starting one in four venture-backed companies since 1990 and two in five in high technology. This is according to a study released by the National Venture Capital Association trade group to the U.S. Congress in November 2006.
Myth: H1B quota increase will result in more green cards
Fact: H1B has a separate quota from green card quotas. Even after an individual has approved security check, labor certification and employment eligibility; a visa number must be available for him to receive a green card. This quota is subject to annual numerical limits. Based on the current annual visa limit, applications are backlogged 6 years.
Future of Legal Immigration
It is presumed that legal immigration process works efficiently and in a clockwork fashion. However when you consider that legal applicants have to wait 5-8 years for a green card; this statement is false. In the current political environment pro and anti immigrant extremism exist side by side. A rational, middle of the road approach is largely missing. Such an approach would prioritize immigration based on the contribution of immigrants towards economic growth, the reduction of job outsourcing and most importantly rewarding those who chose to enter and continue to reside legally in USA.
Americans largely supports legal immigration. This year, the Secure Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership Bill was introduced in Senate and in the House of Representatives. This bill provides the much needed immigration reforms for highly skilled immigrants. However the democrat leadership has not yet declared immigration on their agenda for the first 100 hours of work. Unless congress collectively passes immigration relief for skilled workers, political considerations for the 2008 presidential elections will put this issue on the back burner again.
more...
makeup For girls choosing a mask,
funny
09-12 01:56 PM
That is right. I said before and I am saying again. I am against sending flowers or calculators because.
1. They cost money (Some people may not do that just because of that).
2. USCIS will like those toys for their kids (Please come out of the movie mood, movies impress a lot but they are a lot different from real life). Believe me they will treat these things as wonderful gifts and we will end up spending time and money for these.
3. It will not make any difference to USCIS.
4. USCIS can always redirect all those flowers to orphanage or other places, what they cannot do is redirect our posters trying to put them to shame.
I have been appealing a lot about this. Why do not we have a letter compain along with posters which should put them to shame. These should not only be sent to USCIS, but also to the press, congressmen, president of US and yes the director of USCIS. I have created several posters here.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4vkcmm_124c6jh9dg6&invite=mqk525
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4vkcmm_127xvp53jdx&invite=cn4gjw5
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4vkcmm_12895rfwtcw&invite=g7kcrzz
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4vkcmm_130cvdpx4cg&invite=7bb9vs
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4vkcmm_132g6jcsffz&invite=hczhh8x
The letter campaign thread is
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21340
Does anybody here agree with me ? Singhsa, your thoughts ?
I totally agree with "bsbawa10" , Not many people will invilve if its a matter of spending 30-50$ and for sure stuff like Calculators and clock will go to the Kids of USCIS officers and their friends as Thanksgiving "Gifts". I think we should send mass letters to all the involved agencies with posters. Not only all the people will be involved, it will be difficult for USCIS to redirect the stuff to some orphanage/veterans Hospitals etc. Just my 2 cents.
1. They cost money (Some people may not do that just because of that).
2. USCIS will like those toys for their kids (Please come out of the movie mood, movies impress a lot but they are a lot different from real life). Believe me they will treat these things as wonderful gifts and we will end up spending time and money for these.
3. It will not make any difference to USCIS.
4. USCIS can always redirect all those flowers to orphanage or other places, what they cannot do is redirect our posters trying to put them to shame.
I have been appealing a lot about this. Why do not we have a letter compain along with posters which should put them to shame. These should not only be sent to USCIS, but also to the press, congressmen, president of US and yes the director of USCIS. I have created several posters here.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4vkcmm_124c6jh9dg6&invite=mqk525
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4vkcmm_127xvp53jdx&invite=cn4gjw5
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4vkcmm_12895rfwtcw&invite=g7kcrzz
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4vkcmm_130cvdpx4cg&invite=7bb9vs
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd4vkcmm_132g6jcsffz&invite=hczhh8x
The letter campaign thread is
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21340
Does anybody here agree with me ? Singhsa, your thoughts ?
I totally agree with "bsbawa10" , Not many people will invilve if its a matter of spending 30-50$ and for sure stuff like Calculators and clock will go to the Kids of USCIS officers and their friends as Thanksgiving "Gifts". I think we should send mass letters to all the involved agencies with posters. Not only all the people will be involved, it will be difficult for USCIS to redirect the stuff to some orphanage/veterans Hospitals etc. Just my 2 cents.
girlfriend Free Shipping girls wool dress
priderock
06-01 03:31 PM
I may be wrong but this is just an omission in the language of the bill. The effective date was stated as the date the bill is introduced, I guess it will change to some thin like when it is signed in to law or sixty days or 180 days from that date. As I said I could be wrong, but it seemed unfair and not right to make it effective retroactively.
Note : this is for 140s only and not for AOS.
Note : this is for 140s only and not for AOS.
hairstyles Skirt top is the girls dress
skv
06-17 10:42 AM
Thank you for your e-mail to the National Processing Center concerning
your case filed under the PERM program.
Our office can only respond to inquiries from the employer's contact
person or attorney/agent listed on the submitted 9089 form.
Atlanta Help Desk (17)
Above is the message, I got it from them. I can't contact my attorney, because that's our company policy. While the HR told me that they will inform me when my PERM gets approved.
Hope after 5 long years , my GC ambition will be completed this time. All the best for rest of the folks!!!
your case filed under the PERM program.
Our office can only respond to inquiries from the employer's contact
person or attorney/agent listed on the submitted 9089 form.
Atlanta Help Desk (17)
Above is the message, I got it from them. I can't contact my attorney, because that's our company policy. While the HR told me that they will inform me when my PERM gets approved.
Hope after 5 long years , my GC ambition will be completed this time. All the best for rest of the folks!!!
jung.lee
04-04 12:55 AM
:confused::confused:We cannot start a S-corp on EAD. Need to be GC holder or US Citizen.
...
Should a Corporation's owners later wish to be taxed as an S-Corporation, they would file a "Subchapter S" federal tax election (Form 2553) within 75 days of incorporating or within 75 days of the beginning of the calendar year. To do this, the Corporation would need to have less than 100 owners, all of whom must be either U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens ("green card" holders). Once the "S" tax election is made, the return to be filed is the 1120 "S", rather than the 1120. Whether or not you decide to be taxed as an S-Corporation, your company is still a "General Corporation" in the eyes of the state of incorporation.
...
[
But we can setup Solo or Partership or C-Corp. Don't run into legal issues by setting up S-Corp on EAD, before getting GC.
Good luck.
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
...
Should a Corporation's owners later wish to be taxed as an S-Corporation, they would file a "Subchapter S" federal tax election (Form 2553) within 75 days of incorporating or within 75 days of the beginning of the calendar year. To do this, the Corporation would need to have less than 100 owners, all of whom must be either U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens ("green card" holders). Once the "S" tax election is made, the return to be filed is the 1120 "S", rather than the 1120. Whether or not you decide to be taxed as an S-Corporation, your company is still a "General Corporation" in the eyes of the state of incorporation.
...
[
But we can setup Solo or Partership or C-Corp. Don't run into legal issues by setting up S-Corp on EAD, before getting GC.
Good luck.
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
gcisadawg
03-04 11:43 PM
do have your 140 approved?
Nope, still waiting for I-140. Opened a ticket with both local congressman and USCIS.
CM replied saying "file is with manager for review".....whatever that means...
Still waiting to hear from USCIS for SR.
Nope, still waiting for I-140. Opened a ticket with both local congressman and USCIS.
CM replied saying "file is with manager for review".....whatever that means...
Still waiting to hear from USCIS for SR.
No comments:
Post a Comment