s416504
08-13 02:32 PM
My Application delivered at 11:34 by USPS & signed by B GERKENSMEYER.
So far No LUD..No Receipts..Any one else signed by B GERKENSMEYER.
So far No LUD..No Receipts..Any one else signed by B GERKENSMEYER.
wallpaper Love Wallpapers. Download
Winner
02-09 08:32 PM
Did you all see Donald Trumps answer to Piers Morgans question in Piers Morgan tonight program on CNN? that was not a yotal surprise, but after his talk about China and India, that was a little bit surprising.
SDdesi
11-18 12:26 PM
Sent to:
Senator Cornyn
Senator Hutchison
Representative Johnson
Senator Cornyn
Senator Hutchison
Representative Johnson
2011 Best Love wallpaper designs
desi3933
07-10 12:24 AM
@desi3933:
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
tonyHK12
02-02 11:02 AM
to create forum like this and get people who complains about India and slowly work on fixing it one by one.
Good luck finding volunteers and donors!
Good luck finding volunteers and donors!
senk1s
07-03 05:24 PM
Yes !!
Happy Independance Day
Happy Independance Day
more...
HelloWorld2007
09-18 02:28 PM
Have any of your packages been received by 'M Hindera'. Never seen this name come across in this board. Mine was received by this guy on 20th July at NSC, 140 approved at NSC, no receipts. Pls let me know..
thanks
thanks
2010 emo love wallpapers for
jsb
09-01 11:42 PM
It is possible that check depositing staff also has there own back log. Once, application and checks are accepted, EAD can be issued, but check depositing staff may be slow in their work.
more...
hindichinibhaibhai
03-15 01:10 AM
How many of those 245(i) cases from April 2001 might exist in the EB3-India bucket?
As long as there are 245(i) cases pending against Eb3-India, this category cannot move past 2001. Though it doesn't make any sense how EB3-China and EB3-Mexico made it to 2003.
As long as there are 245(i) cases pending against Eb3-India, this category cannot move past 2001. Though it doesn't make any sense how EB3-China and EB3-Mexico made it to 2003.
hair islamic wallpaper desktop
delax
07-27 12:33 AM
That is your take ....or they could end up distributing the spill over Visas equally among all EB categories because the original quota is equally distributed too. This benefits both EB3 and EB2.
Please do not try to pass on your opinions as facts ...they are not.
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
Please do not try to pass on your opinions as facts ...they are not.
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
more...
snathan
02-09 03:20 PM
Please donate...
hot beautiful love wallpapers
desi3933
06-27 03:08 PM
Minimum of 6 Months..
Incorrect
As per law one should have intent to work full-time for the employer (or AC-21 employer) at the time of approval. There is no time period specified.
The intent, of course, can change after some time. Lawyers differs on the duration. Some argue it is 90 days, whereas others suggest 180 days or 1 year.
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
desi3933 at gmail.com
Incorrect
As per law one should have intent to work full-time for the employer (or AC-21 employer) at the time of approval. There is no time period specified.
The intent, of course, can change after some time. Lawyers differs on the duration. Some argue it is 90 days, whereas others suggest 180 days or 1 year.
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
desi3933 at gmail.com
more...
house wallpaper desktop love sad
tikka
06-07 01:08 PM
please Contribute $$
Iv Needs Funds For Lobbying Efforts
Iv Needs Funds For Lobbying Efforts
tattoo love wallpapers for desktop 4
gc_maine2
08-13 02:44 PM
As per the discussion's from other threads about LUD, it's been largerly agreed that there is no relavance between the LUD change/not change to one's 485 application. Hopes this will clear your doubt.
Hi all,
any advice/suggestion in my case:
EB3
I-140 is approved on Jun 15, 2007, Premium processing, in Texas
I485 package delivered to Nebraska on July 2, 11:35 am and is singed by ... whoever..
I've registered on the https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp
site and all times before LUD for my I140 was 6/16/2007 until today
Today LUD for is updated to 8/12/2007.
Checks have not been cashed.
Please anybody is in the same sutiation???
Hi all,
any advice/suggestion in my case:
EB3
I-140 is approved on Jun 15, 2007, Premium processing, in Texas
I485 package delivered to Nebraska on July 2, 11:35 am and is singed by ... whoever..
I've registered on the https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp
site and all times before LUD for my I140 was 6/16/2007 until today
Today LUD for is updated to 8/12/2007.
Checks have not been cashed.
Please anybody is in the same sutiation???
more...
pictures love wallpapers for desktop background. love wallpapers for desktop
cool_guy_onnet1
05-03 03:30 PM
source immigration-law.com
05/02/2006: Senator John Cornyn Introduced S.2691 for "Legal" Employment-Based Immigration Legislation
* Today, John Cornyn, Senator from Texas, introduced in the Senate S. 2691, Securing Knowledge Innovation and Leadership (SKIL) bill, which is similar to the legal employment-based immigration bills incorporated in the comprehensive immigration reform bills of Senator Bill Frist and Senator Alen Specter. These legal employment-based immigration bills are similar to the Education bill named PACE Act which is still pending in the Senate.
* Senator Cornyn strongly opposes the legalization of undocumented immigrants as opposed to the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and most of the Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The compromised comprehensive immigration reform proposal faced strong challenge from Senator Cornyn before the bill collapsed in the Senate during the Easter break. Cornyn-Kyl bill and McCain-Kennedy has engaged in a fierce duel in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate. The collision was marked by the legalization of illegal immigrants that are incorporated in the McCain-Kennedy bill.
* By introduction of S. 2691, Senator Cornyn practically joins the original Bill Frist bill that strongly supported legal immigration and strongly opposed legalization of illegal aliens by focusing on the border security and the immigration enforcement. Question remains whether the legal immigration bill can pass the Congress as separate from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. We are concerned that this bill may bring a further division between the legal immigrant community and the illegal immigrant community with the potential damaging consequences to both legal and illegal communities. We have maintained a tradition of strongly supporting legal employment-based immigration. We just hope that the legal and illegal reform legislation does not end up with the fate of S. 1932 as driven by the political forces using the traditional battle tactic of 'divide and conquer.' From the perspectives of the legal employment-based immigrant community, all of the pending bills support their interest and they will be least affected by whichever bill the Congress finally would pass. This is a time to unite and not a time to divide.
I am a big fan of oh-law and I see what he is trying to explain - but common-sense suggets that all the law firms are scared that instead of 12 million pottential customers they will only see 0.5 (legal) and 4-5 million (>5 year illegal resident if comprehensive bill passes).
Would you like your customer base to go down by 50 or 96%? I guess No- so don't pay too much attention to who cries faul- It's all fair as long as we The hard working tax-paying technology workers get piece of american dream.
At this point it's all about flexing the muscles-
No politics, it's just plain vanila human greed!
05/02/2006: Senator John Cornyn Introduced S.2691 for "Legal" Employment-Based Immigration Legislation
* Today, John Cornyn, Senator from Texas, introduced in the Senate S. 2691, Securing Knowledge Innovation and Leadership (SKIL) bill, which is similar to the legal employment-based immigration bills incorporated in the comprehensive immigration reform bills of Senator Bill Frist and Senator Alen Specter. These legal employment-based immigration bills are similar to the Education bill named PACE Act which is still pending in the Senate.
* Senator Cornyn strongly opposes the legalization of undocumented immigrants as opposed to the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and most of the Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The compromised comprehensive immigration reform proposal faced strong challenge from Senator Cornyn before the bill collapsed in the Senate during the Easter break. Cornyn-Kyl bill and McCain-Kennedy has engaged in a fierce duel in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate. The collision was marked by the legalization of illegal immigrants that are incorporated in the McCain-Kennedy bill.
* By introduction of S. 2691, Senator Cornyn practically joins the original Bill Frist bill that strongly supported legal immigration and strongly opposed legalization of illegal aliens by focusing on the border security and the immigration enforcement. Question remains whether the legal immigration bill can pass the Congress as separate from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. We are concerned that this bill may bring a further division between the legal immigrant community and the illegal immigrant community with the potential damaging consequences to both legal and illegal communities. We have maintained a tradition of strongly supporting legal employment-based immigration. We just hope that the legal and illegal reform legislation does not end up with the fate of S. 1932 as driven by the political forces using the traditional battle tactic of 'divide and conquer.' From the perspectives of the legal employment-based immigrant community, all of the pending bills support their interest and they will be least affected by whichever bill the Congress finally would pass. This is a time to unite and not a time to divide.
I am a big fan of oh-law and I see what he is trying to explain - but common-sense suggets that all the law firms are scared that instead of 12 million pottential customers they will only see 0.5 (legal) and 4-5 million (>5 year illegal resident if comprehensive bill passes).
Would you like your customer base to go down by 50 or 96%? I guess No- so don't pay too much attention to who cries faul- It's all fair as long as we The hard working tax-paying technology workers get piece of american dream.
At this point it's all about flexing the muscles-
No politics, it's just plain vanila human greed!
dresses love wallpapers for desktop
jsb
11-08 12:52 PM
When some one decides to apply AC21 by having an offer from another employer, it is not clear if one is required to inform USCIS about it. Some say one should, others say, not required. Has anyone seen any USCIS position on it? If not, perhaps we should make this as a question for next Ombudsman's conference call.
more...
makeup Love Wallpaper for Desktop
abhisam
07-15 01:05 AM
I applied for my EAD and AP renewal on the second week of May 2008. Again, I am not sure if EAD or AP renewal triggered the FP notice. Good luck to you.
thank you mhtanim. i would appreciate it if you could let me know when you recieve your ead..would like to track how long it takes. i am worried that i would not recieve by renewal before my current ead expires.
thank you mhtanim. i would appreciate it if you could let me know when you recieve your ead..would like to track how long it takes. i am worried that i would not recieve by renewal before my current ead expires.
girlfriend Desktop Wallpaper: Love
Libra
08-20 12:38 PM
Dude, what makes you feel better? let me try, my case pd is Mar 18th 2005, RD july 2nd 2007 and ND July 28th 2007.
It is assigned to officer on 28th June, no issues with case, all are in place like name check, background check, finger prints valid till next year, officer touched my case on july 12th and 28th, no RFE sent so far as per IO and don't know why it is still sitting on officers desk. I did everything SR, 2 infopass, senators, congresswomen, Ombudsman, NSC follow up emails, SCOPSSCATTA email, nothing worked so far.
I think you will leave the boat before me, good luck.
Ha ha Congrats....
Story of my life. I complain about delay with my application. Someone joins me and tells me they are in the same boat and the very next day that someone leaves the boat and jumps into "greener" pastures. Everyone is leaving the boat and I seem to be left out :(
Who else are in my boat? (Application with an officer for over 2 weeks and still status = "Initial Review")
It is assigned to officer on 28th June, no issues with case, all are in place like name check, background check, finger prints valid till next year, officer touched my case on july 12th and 28th, no RFE sent so far as per IO and don't know why it is still sitting on officers desk. I did everything SR, 2 infopass, senators, congresswomen, Ombudsman, NSC follow up emails, SCOPSSCATTA email, nothing worked so far.
I think you will leave the boat before me, good luck.
Ha ha Congrats....
Story of my life. I complain about delay with my application. Someone joins me and tells me they are in the same boat and the very next day that someone leaves the boat and jumps into "greener" pastures. Everyone is leaving the boat and I seem to be left out :(
Who else are in my boat? (Application with an officer for over 2 weeks and still status = "Initial Review")
hairstyles love wallpapers for desktop
samrat_bhargava_vihari
06-13 09:50 AM
Hi any body got FP notice with your receipt notice?
abq_gc
08-17 06:18 PM
I-485 delivered at 10:25 on July 2, 2007 in LINCOLN, NE (NSC)
Signed by J BARRET.
I-140 approved from TSC
I-140 LUD on 07/28/2007
No receipts Yet.
Same here..
I-140 Approved from Texas, LUD on 07/22/2007.
I-485 reached NSC on July 2nd.
No receipts yet or check cashed.
Signed by J BARRET.
I-140 approved from TSC
I-140 LUD on 07/28/2007
No receipts Yet.
Same here..
I-140 Approved from Texas, LUD on 07/22/2007.
I-485 reached NSC on July 2nd.
No receipts yet or check cashed.
settling_withgc
07-18 02:19 PM
I got my FP done in Jan 2008 but we never got the FP for my wife. We put in a SR with USCIS customer service.
We did get a response about the delays, but it is taking more than 60 days to get a response.
It has been 5 months since that response came.
We called USCIS customer service and they suggested to go to the fingerprinting location, along with original I-485 receipt notice and the letter stating the delay and see if the IO would take the FP the same day.
Lets see ....
We did get a response about the delays, but it is taking more than 60 days to get a response.
It has been 5 months since that response came.
We called USCIS customer service and they suggested to go to the fingerprinting location, along with original I-485 receipt notice and the letter stating the delay and see if the IO would take the FP the same day.
Lets see ....
No comments:
Post a Comment