MetteBB
06-06 02:53 PM
Awesome 3 of my 36 stamps got in :P
But seriously, i wish you put in my pink nebula one! oh well! :)
3 out of 44 is not bad, so no complaining ;)
/mette
But seriously, i wish you put in my pink nebula one! oh well! :)
3 out of 44 is not bad, so no complaining ;)
/mette
wallpaper Home middot; Men#39;s Hairstyles
eager_immi
07-19 05:24 PM
She should go on h4. If she wants her ead she can file once you get AOS receipt No. unless u alreaqy filed for it. If u already filed for her ead you should still wait for her to quit her h1 job till the ead comes through.
Can someone give me answer for the second question:
2. My spouse's AOS was filed with mine as dependent. She has a H1 of her own and is working. Now, after the I485 receipt comes back, if she leaves her job, will she be in status (or does she need to move to H4? I'll stay on H1 and won't invoke EAD unless necessary). My understanding is, with the receipt, she is in status no matter what (unless the I485 gets denied).
Can someone give me answer for the second question:
2. My spouse's AOS was filed with mine as dependent. She has a H1 of her own and is working. Now, after the I485 receipt comes back, if she leaves her job, will she be in status (or does she need to move to H4? I'll stay on H1 and won't invoke EAD unless necessary). My understanding is, with the receipt, she is in status no matter what (unless the I485 gets denied).
umndude
06-17 03:19 PM
Let's say there is a problem. What can you do to fix it? You want to start GC fresh?
Relax... I have seen many people who bought PDs from consultants paying 10k and got GCs too. Don't worry. If you post these kind of threads, it make people waiting for years more frustrating. Be happy for your luck. Go chill. Don't keep saying you are afraid and all.
I can empathize. I might me more luckier than you, and there are people *luckier* than me. (You know what I mean..) But, if for some reason I don't get my GC, and you get your GC in a few years, me being lucky to start with is of no use. Nothing is sure till GC is on-hand for anyone.
So, I would appreciate if someone could let me know if there are any disadvantages process-wise when it comes to I-485 adjudication on a pre-approved labor.
Thanks.
Relax... I have seen many people who bought PDs from consultants paying 10k and got GCs too. Don't worry. If you post these kind of threads, it make people waiting for years more frustrating. Be happy for your luck. Go chill. Don't keep saying you are afraid and all.
I can empathize. I might me more luckier than you, and there are people *luckier* than me. (You know what I mean..) But, if for some reason I don't get my GC, and you get your GC in a few years, me being lucky to start with is of no use. Nothing is sure till GC is on-hand for anyone.
So, I would appreciate if someone could let me know if there are any disadvantages process-wise when it comes to I-485 adjudication on a pre-approved labor.
Thanks.
2011 mens short londe hairstyles
kapilgogia
03-17 07:00 PM
Hi,
My wife, who is the primary green card applicant is planning to change job from desi consulting company to a fortune 500 company. The fortune 500 company wants to invoke AC21 as 180 days have passed from received date and I140 is approved.
Please let me know if someone has similar experience with the following:
1. Is there any salary restriction on increase from current salary percentage wise?
2. Has anyone used sucessfully AC21 in the past and had no issues with EAD renewals and Green card?
Thanks
There is no requirement for number of employees. You need to make sure the company is financially capable to do H1. You must make sure you get salary equal or above the salary offered in your LC. And also the job duties are same or similar.
My wife, who is the primary green card applicant is planning to change job from desi consulting company to a fortune 500 company. The fortune 500 company wants to invoke AC21 as 180 days have passed from received date and I140 is approved.
Please let me know if someone has similar experience with the following:
1. Is there any salary restriction on increase from current salary percentage wise?
2. Has anyone used sucessfully AC21 in the past and had no issues with EAD renewals and Green card?
Thanks
There is no requirement for number of employees. You need to make sure the company is financially capable to do H1. You must make sure you get salary equal or above the salary offered in your LC. And also the job duties are same or similar.
more...
laborpains
03-17 10:03 PM
First check with the school if they will allow you to attend on EAD. I'll like to know what you finally decide. I was in a similar situation 3 yrs back and decided to go part-time instead. Finished the program and my gc is still pending :(
Hope things work out well for you.
Hope things work out well for you.
gc_wannabe
06-16 11:05 PM
Hi- When I started off with the green card process, I had not idea about what most of the things meant. I joined a very reputable Fortune 500 company in 2006 (the same year I came to the US on a H1B), and started my GC process in 2007. The company offered me an pre-approved labor with a 2006 PD, which had a matching requirement w.r.t job description and salary.
During July 2007, i filed for my I-140 and I-485. Subsequently, my I-140 got approved without any issues. Now, given that my priority date is close to being current (2/14/2006), I'm afraid if using a pre-approved labor will have any role to play with my I-485 approval.
And no, I'm not working for a consultant. And I have been with the same employer since 2006.
Please don't start off with the jumping the queue argument. When I used the labor substitution, it was perfectly legal, and didn't even know what a priority date is :-)
Thanks.
During July 2007, i filed for my I-140 and I-485. Subsequently, my I-140 got approved without any issues. Now, given that my priority date is close to being current (2/14/2006), I'm afraid if using a pre-approved labor will have any role to play with my I-485 approval.
And no, I'm not working for a consultant. And I have been with the same employer since 2006.
Please don't start off with the jumping the queue argument. When I used the labor substitution, it was perfectly legal, and didn't even know what a priority date is :-)
Thanks.
more...
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
2010 short girls hairstyles
usirit
11-21 10:52 PM
Unless their is a backdoor... If I decide to switch to my new employer and transfer my GC & H1B, it will be done again as an EB-3... I have 10+ years of experience and an Associate Degree... last year tried to obtain a Bachelor of Science in Business of Information Systems (BSBIS) but my actual employer stop funding so... I had to stop. :mad: New employer's attorney confirmed this.
An EB-2:
> Is a member of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent; or
> Because of your exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural, or educational interests or welfare of the U.S.
An EB-3:
Allows foreign nationals who are skilled workers, professionals or other type of workers to enter into the U.S. to obtain permanent residency.
Meridiani.planum: Thank you for your detailed description.
Bestia: Hopefully my PERM is approved in the next days in order to support your mentioned lawyer's preferences.
Bottom line: I am waiting for a very good offer in order to make a decision.... I'll keep you posted.
An EB-2:
> Is a member of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent; or
> Because of your exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural, or educational interests or welfare of the U.S.
An EB-3:
Allows foreign nationals who are skilled workers, professionals or other type of workers to enter into the U.S. to obtain permanent residency.
Meridiani.planum: Thank you for your detailed description.
Bestia: Hopefully my PERM is approved in the next days in order to support your mentioned lawyer's preferences.
Bottom line: I am waiting for a very good offer in order to make a decision.... I'll keep you posted.
more...
ewana
02-02 11:57 PM
Hi all,
I'm currently on H1B. My wife is on a L1 visa and her company just applied for her I140/I765/I485 concurrent (under EB1). Based on the previous post, it seems that if my wife gets approved for her GC, I can piggy back anytime since we were married before she got her GC.
My question is with regards to the PD if she got approved, do I get the Priority Date for EB1 (meaning little wait) or so I need to wait months/years of delay ? Should I just instead apply for I485 after her I140 is approved so that we get our GC together. What would be the risk in case something wrong happen to her application ? would I lose my H1b? I would like to hold on to my H1B unless I'm sure I can get my GC. My H1b is not IT related so I'm not that confident to find another one in case I lose my H1b. My company is willing to sponsor my greencard, but we thought of trying the EB1 first as it is much much faster.
Thanks for all your insights.
I'm currently on H1B. My wife is on a L1 visa and her company just applied for her I140/I765/I485 concurrent (under EB1). Based on the previous post, it seems that if my wife gets approved for her GC, I can piggy back anytime since we were married before she got her GC.
My question is with regards to the PD if she got approved, do I get the Priority Date for EB1 (meaning little wait) or so I need to wait months/years of delay ? Should I just instead apply for I485 after her I140 is approved so that we get our GC together. What would be the risk in case something wrong happen to her application ? would I lose my H1b? I would like to hold on to my H1B unless I'm sure I can get my GC. My H1b is not IT related so I'm not that confident to find another one in case I lose my H1b. My company is willing to sponsor my greencard, but we thought of trying the EB1 first as it is much much faster.
Thanks for all your insights.
hair londe hairstyles for men,
nissan_1
11-30 01:08 PM
I think you can just let Buffalo processing center about your spouse details. you might have to fillup some forms. My advice is to add your spouse before approval. I think after approval, you have to apply for canadian PR for your wife separately as a "family" class and for that I think you need to stay in canada to show a canadian adress (I am not sure though). I have one friend who is a canadian citizen did the same think for his wife. It took only 6 months from buffalo center...
Hope this helps....
Just occured to me..
I am single now ..how does it work to add my spouse later..???
1. Before approval ..??
2. After approval..???
does it also take years to add spouse (like US GC) if i marry after my PR gets approved..???
Thans in advance...
Hope this helps....
Just occured to me..
I am single now ..how does it work to add my spouse later..???
1. Before approval ..??
2. After approval..???
does it also take years to add spouse (like US GC) if i marry after my PR gets approved..???
Thans in advance...
more...
chanduv23
07-11 02:42 PM
My EAD and AP application was received June 19, 2009 at TSC. To my pleasant shocking & surprise USCIS approved mine and wife's application in 20 days and we received the card today.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
My EAD and AP were receipted on June 9th from TSC. AP got approved, EAD still pending. So I guess these approvals are random.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
My EAD and AP were receipted on June 9th from TSC. AP got approved, EAD still pending. So I guess these approvals are random.
hot hair stylesquot;, quot;lack men
gcpool
08-23 04:01 PM
Why are they different for different years
more...
house hairstyles for middle age
ivgclive
09-04 01:59 PM
Guys,
Here is the list of people who recently died in my village. Let us all pray for their soul to rest in peace. Please understand that when we can pray for YSR..we can do for these people also. Every life has the same value...dont you agree..
1. Rasu Devan
2. Kenkai ammal
3. Gandhi mathi (lady only).
Please all do pray for the poor souls. From today onwords I will post all the dead people list in IV and let us all pray for them. Thanks for your support and prayer. Please let your freinds and family know about this and ask them to join in our prayer. Once again thanks guys.
You are more than welcome to give red dots.
Good. Let us collect a list of people who died and pray for them.
You could add their PD and Category also, would be nice.
Here is the list of people who recently died in my village. Let us all pray for their soul to rest in peace. Please understand that when we can pray for YSR..we can do for these people also. Every life has the same value...dont you agree..
1. Rasu Devan
2. Kenkai ammal
3. Gandhi mathi (lady only).
Please all do pray for the poor souls. From today onwords I will post all the dead people list in IV and let us all pray for them. Thanks for your support and prayer. Please let your freinds and family know about this and ask them to join in our prayer. Once again thanks guys.
You are more than welcome to give red dots.
Good. Let us collect a list of people who died and pray for them.
You could add their PD and Category also, would be nice.
tattoo Blonde Hair With Black
gman
12-22 11:07 PM
Unlike H1B, at the time of layoff, if 485 is pending more than 6 months, you are still in legal status, (in h1b case there is no grace period). There is no time limit to find a similar job. You can stay at home for till your 485 approval, with legal status. Having said that, if INS asks for a eveidence of full time-permanat job you should be in a postion to show the job offer. In simple terms, tou should have a vaild job offer at the time of approval of your 485.
If i-485 has been pending for more than 6 months and I suddenly get laid off can i leave the country and come back when it's approved? Or can I leave the country and come back in a few months with or without job offer?
If i-485 has been pending for more than 6 months and I suddenly get laid off can i leave the country and come back when it's approved? Or can I leave the country and come back in a few months with or without job offer?
more...
pictures pictures of haircuts for women
deepimpact
09-22 08:20 PM
Next thing....H1 program only once in 3 years or only when "needed".....
Cut the number of GCs by half...So that people will go back to their origin when their H1 expires.....
Attach huge price tag to GC... and...
Well, the message is clear...Isn't it?
Well instead of going back after H1 expires, the people can chose to be illegals. Then their Kids will get GC under the DREAM ACT.:D
Cut the number of GCs by half...So that people will go back to their origin when their H1 expires.....
Attach huge price tag to GC... and...
Well, the message is clear...Isn't it?
Well instead of going back after H1 expires, the people can chose to be illegals. Then their Kids will get GC under the DREAM ACT.:D
dresses Short+londe+hairstyles+men
kris04
07-06 07:44 PM
Why would you need an EVL from your new employer or inform the USCIS of your job change, in this case? AC21 does not require you to "file AC21" (whatever that means), contrary to what has been advised in this forum many times. Please Google "Yates memo;" see, e.g., http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/ac21-51205.pdf. Here are my attorney's comments in this regard:
"AC21 is the name of the immigration act that allowed portability for those who have an approved I-140 and I-485 pending over 180 days. There are no regulations for this provision therefore no instructions regarding notification so there is no actual action to "invoke AC21". The Service will sometimes send out an RFE just prior to approving an I-485 to request confirmation that the individual is either still employed by the sponsoring employer or if not, that he/she was portable when changing positions which is evidenced by a letter from the new employer."
I don't think you should request any thing from your new employer other than a job offer. You need an EVL *only* in case of an RFE. And no need to "file AC21!"
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
"AC21 is the name of the immigration act that allowed portability for those who have an approved I-140 and I-485 pending over 180 days. There are no regulations for this provision therefore no instructions regarding notification so there is no actual action to "invoke AC21". The Service will sometimes send out an RFE just prior to approving an I-485 to request confirmation that the individual is either still employed by the sponsoring employer or if not, that he/she was portable when changing positions which is evidenced by a letter from the new employer."
I don't think you should request any thing from your new employer other than a job offer. You need an EVL *only* in case of an RFE. And no need to "file AC21!"
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
more...
makeup short londe haircuts for men.
reddog
04-20 09:50 AM
Dude!
You must be badly in lover with her!... I have never heard about a typical Indian dude worrying about to-be-bride's financial distress. Good for both of you love birds! ;)
Rather, an Indian dude, or for that matter dudes everywhere would worry the most about the to-be-bride.
You must be badly in lover with her!... I have never heard about a typical Indian dude worrying about to-be-bride's financial distress. Good for both of you love birds! ;)
Rather, an Indian dude, or for that matter dudes everywhere would worry the most about the to-be-bride.
girlfriend Black men#39;s hair tends to
seahawks
06-27 02:58 PM
Consult with you Attorney first, as this is a very rare scenario for any one to answer in the forum. Also see if you can get this addresses when you go for the actual FP, Try to carry all the documents, Passport, Driver's License, etc and the copy of the I-485/ I-765 etc where you have the correct names.
Attorney is the best source of information in this scenario. Also call USCIS and request them what needs to be done in this case. Also you can get a InfoPASS appointment and get this corrected.
Reviewed all forms today. Attorney said if 485 form is correct, not to worry, go for FP and show all your proof.. but then I found out 485 form was wrong too, so waiting to hear from him.
Attorney is the best source of information in this scenario. Also call USCIS and request them what needs to be done in this case. Also you can get a InfoPASS appointment and get this corrected.
Reviewed all forms today. Attorney said if 485 form is correct, not to worry, go for FP and show all your proof.. but then I found out 485 form was wrong too, so waiting to hear from him.
hairstyles prom picture hairstyles
matreen
09-05 05:40 PM
Please don't give incorrect answers.
All three corporation types (C-Corp, S-Corp, and LLC) have limited liability to its shareholders.
The main difference in these corp types are
1. How much record keeping is done
2. The way taxes are computed and filed with IRS
3. The kind of expenses allowed to deduct
4. C-Corp and LLC can carryover profits to next year(s), but S-Corp has to pass on profit (or loss) to the shareholders at the end of every calendar year.
For S-Corp, the shareholders must be Permanent Resident or US Citizen.
I have corporation of my own and this is C-Corp (due to kind of expenses I can deduct and/or write-off). I did all the incorporation work myself without any help from CPA. Incorporation is pretty straight forward and very easy. There are good books in Nolo Press on Corporate Incorporation.
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
Thanks, nice reply.
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
All three corporation types (C-Corp, S-Corp, and LLC) have limited liability to its shareholders.
The main difference in these corp types are
1. How much record keeping is done
2. The way taxes are computed and filed with IRS
3. The kind of expenses allowed to deduct
4. C-Corp and LLC can carryover profits to next year(s), but S-Corp has to pass on profit (or loss) to the shareholders at the end of every calendar year.
For S-Corp, the shareholders must be Permanent Resident or US Citizen.
I have corporation of my own and this is C-Corp (due to kind of expenses I can deduct and/or write-off). I did all the incorporation work myself without any help from CPA. Incorporation is pretty straight forward and very easy. There are good books in Nolo Press on Corporate Incorporation.
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
Thanks, nice reply.
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
walker15
02-15 10:55 AM
Also your immigration attorney's involvement is very crucial in regard to your case.
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
No comments:
Post a Comment