cbpds
08-03 06:27 PM
you missed on one fav diet control idea ---drinking Green tea :)
wallpaper makeup wife Poems, love notes,
ronnie0479
03-31 02:39 PM
Immigration and Tax Filing are not at all related.
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
jonty_11
03-14 03:12 PM
You can travel back to India on an expired US VISA also.
As long as you are travelling back to india (Country of citizenship)
I did that last yr
someone posted link to German Cosul in LA, which states this clearly...
As long as you are travelling back to india (Country of citizenship)
I did that last yr
someone posted link to German Cosul in LA, which states this clearly...
2011 dresses love poems quotes.
gotgc?
02-04 09:52 AM
My wife was allowed to travel on BA when she went from US to India. But when we were returning to US, the ticketing agent in India would not issue bording pass because Canadian PR can only be used if you are travelling to Canada and NOT to USA. The ticketing manager even called someone in London Airport to get the confirmation and after that they just denied my request even after showing the document that says Canada PR issues after Apr 2005 does not require transit visa.
I would say, get the visa to be on the safeside so that there will not be any troubles in the last minute.
Thanks deba and kk_kk...for sharing your expereince...based on what you guys say, the cheap deal i get with BA is not worth taking this risk. I am giving up on London transit..i will take Lufthansa or pacific route....thanks a lot again....
I would say, get the visa to be on the safeside so that there will not be any troubles in the last minute.
Thanks deba and kk_kk...for sharing your expereince...based on what you guys say, the cheap deal i get with BA is not worth taking this risk. I am giving up on London transit..i will take Lufthansa or pacific route....thanks a lot again....
more...
binadh
07-09 01:52 PM
I am not asking how to snatch the sugarcane out of an Elephant's mouth. I just want to poke the cane in his mouth until he bleeds, so that he will think twice before he grabs on the sugarcane next time. You know what I mean???
I learned my lesson and just want to teach him something out of this as well. HELP ME here?
Lawyers do not refund any payments (period).
An Indian saying comes to mind (roughly translated): Never try to snatch the sugarcane out of an elephant's mouth.
I learned my lesson and just want to teach him something out of this as well. HELP ME here?
Lawyers do not refund any payments (period).
An Indian saying comes to mind (roughly translated): Never try to snatch the sugarcane out of an elephant's mouth.
glus
02-27 09:09 AM
I have received my GC on January 28th. My company filled the following with USCIS:
I140 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 24th 2008
I485 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 20th 2008
Now... some people say to me to wait 180 days to quit my current job (which is paying me half of what I should be earning as a GC holder), some people say it is okay to leave at anytime....
So, I don't know what to do, I pretend to become a citzen in 5 years also, and not sure if this will count bad towards that.
I have some reasons to leave: sallary is low (they will not negociate more), wife is pregnant and I am getting a mortgage.
Please advice.
Ok, since your GC has been approved, it is not true you need to wait 180 days. There is nothing in the law that says that. What is true is something different. When you received your GC through your employer, the presumption is that you will remain with this employer for a long time to come as it was a permanent job offer position. Of course, under some circumstances, it is possible you can't work for the same employer any longer; for instance, the company is closing etc. But, if you receive a GC and you voluntarily leave your employer immediately or after a few months, you MAY have issues during naturalization. At that time your application can be scrutinized whether or not you really was going to work for the employer who sponsored you. I've seen this happening several times. If you left voluntarily after a short period of time, the USCIS may say it was fraud and you never intended to work for your sponsor. So, in general, it is advisable to remain with the original sponsor for some time. Some attorneys say 1 year is enough, some say 2 years is enough and some say 6 months is enough. It is up to you. The law does not specify what the period is, but be logical and careful about this. You can hold 5 jobs, but I would suggest to stay with your current employer for as long as possible. Think forward, and not backward.
Hope this makes sense.
I140 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 24th 2008
I485 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 20th 2008
Now... some people say to me to wait 180 days to quit my current job (which is paying me half of what I should be earning as a GC holder), some people say it is okay to leave at anytime....
So, I don't know what to do, I pretend to become a citzen in 5 years also, and not sure if this will count bad towards that.
I have some reasons to leave: sallary is low (they will not negociate more), wife is pregnant and I am getting a mortgage.
Please advice.
Ok, since your GC has been approved, it is not true you need to wait 180 days. There is nothing in the law that says that. What is true is something different. When you received your GC through your employer, the presumption is that you will remain with this employer for a long time to come as it was a permanent job offer position. Of course, under some circumstances, it is possible you can't work for the same employer any longer; for instance, the company is closing etc. But, if you receive a GC and you voluntarily leave your employer immediately or after a few months, you MAY have issues during naturalization. At that time your application can be scrutinized whether or not you really was going to work for the employer who sponsored you. I've seen this happening several times. If you left voluntarily after a short period of time, the USCIS may say it was fraud and you never intended to work for your sponsor. So, in general, it is advisable to remain with the original sponsor for some time. Some attorneys say 1 year is enough, some say 2 years is enough and some say 6 months is enough. It is up to you. The law does not specify what the period is, but be logical and careful about this. You can hold 5 jobs, but I would suggest to stay with your current employer for as long as possible. Think forward, and not backward.
Hope this makes sense.
more...
wandmaker
04-04 11:47 AM
The work location in LCA was company headquarter in Houston. H1 petition was submitted with LCA from Houston.
I have worked in Colorado from 2005 onwards. Company obtained LCA for Colorado, but did not file amendment with USCIS. They paid wages as per Colorado LCA, also filed CO state tax, etc. This was the scenario for both 2005 and 2007 h1 petitions.
Violation of visa terms. One can not predict the success rate of h4 stamping, it is upto the consular officer. Getting a H4 just gives you an option to make a lawfull entry and live in the US, does not eliminate the risk of 485 denial because one should have maintained the proper status until the filing of 485.
I have worked in Colorado from 2005 onwards. Company obtained LCA for Colorado, but did not file amendment with USCIS. They paid wages as per Colorado LCA, also filed CO state tax, etc. This was the scenario for both 2005 and 2007 h1 petitions.
Violation of visa terms. One can not predict the success rate of h4 stamping, it is upto the consular officer. Getting a H4 just gives you an option to make a lawfull entry and live in the US, does not eliminate the risk of 485 denial because one should have maintained the proper status until the filing of 485.
2010 love poems for wife. love
kosu
09-15 09:18 PM
After seeing your post I checked mine. On my 485 Receipt notice the section says: Adjustment as direct beneficiary of immigrant petition.
more...
somegchuh
03-04 06:30 PM
Same thing is true for me. For 4+years I was stuck in PBEC. Dates were current all along. Then filed 485 in Feb 07, dates were still current but name check was pending. Now that the NC isn't an issue, the dates are UNAVAILABLE! This whole thing is just screwing with my brain. To add to the mystery they decided to make a "soft" lud on my 140 yesterday. So just keep waiting like idiots ....
What about the thousands who lost 2-4 years because they were stuck in namecheck, now the name check is cleared but the dates will not move..frigging idiots..too little too late
Before giving the blue/green/red dots, think about this. they created a traffic jam and now they are suddenly releasing it. There were about 150-300k stuck in name check, now all of them are waiting for their PD to be current. (i am one of them too). Think how this will affect the overall queue.
What about the thousands who lost 2-4 years because they were stuck in namecheck, now the name check is cleared but the dates will not move..frigging idiots..too little too late
Before giving the blue/green/red dots, think about this. they created a traffic jam and now they are suddenly releasing it. There were about 150-300k stuck in name check, now all of them are waiting for their PD to be current. (i am one of them too). Think how this will affect the overall queue.
hair wallpaper emo love poems for
cool_cat
09-26 05:11 PM
Hi, My application for I485 was received by Texas service centre. I have not received my RN and neither is my check has been cashed yet. I am confused looking at the online dates at www.USCIS.gov. Is there anyone who filled on 2nd of july and have not heard back from USCIS.
Thanks!
Thanks!
more...
mirage
03-06 02:18 PM
I'm from PA... I had called Senator Specter's Office earlier last week, today I called up Senator Robert Casey's office...
You called office of which Senators?
You called office of which Senators?
hot love poems for wife.
conundrum
03-28 10:01 AM
Great for us...aren't are Indian PHD's in the US are as scholarly and motivated as before? lol To think that there are left over visas in this category beats me ! :D
Having a PhD alone doesn't put you in EB1. Everything depends on the job requirement. You can have a PhD and still be in EB3 if the job that you are working doesn't require an advanced degree.
Having a PhD alone doesn't put you in EB1. Everything depends on the job requirement. You can have a PhD and still be in EB3 if the job that you are working doesn't require an advanced degree.
more...
house These are all free love poems
WaitingForMyGC
01-09 02:30 PM
It would definately move..but movement would be backward. :-)
tattoo Classic Love Poems
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-W-YcqYPq8Orp2T_Wx_e6KsJC9CB9sm68GEZ3jIdMrPCAh8X2dnEaSP0D6bvLPcecmGwCdJDgYzlIDxTf4LK0-ie_itRz45Xgw7fXYf4-acrsh1GKaLGSUTikmIC7xHmxzP1H7V30oco/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-W-YcqYPq8Orp2T_Wx_e6KsJC9CB9sm68GEZ3jIdMrPCAh8X2dnEaSP0D6bvLPcecmGwCdJDgYzlIDxTf4LK0-ie_itRz45Xgw7fXYf4-acrsh1GKaLGSUTikmIC7xHmxzP1H7V30oco/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-W-YcqYPq8Orp2T_Wx_e6KsJC9CB9sm68GEZ3jIdMrPCAh8X2dnEaSP0D6bvLPcecmGwCdJDgYzlIDxTf4LK0-ie_itRz45Xgw7fXYf4-acrsh1GKaLGSUTikmIC7xHmxzP1H7V30oco/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-W-YcqYPq8Orp2T_Wx_e6KsJC9CB9sm68GEZ3jIdMrPCAh8X2dnEaSP0D6bvLPcecmGwCdJDgYzlIDxTf4LK0-ie_itRz45Xgw7fXYf4-acrsh1GKaLGSUTikmIC7xHmxzP1H7V30oco/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
more...
pictures love poems for wife. love
svr_76
06-16 03:22 PM
hi,
I am going for an InfoPass appointment tomorrow and thought of asking the members is the following questions seem appropriate. I dont expect the officer to answer all/any of them..but just thought of listing them..incase I get lucky and get a helpful officer.
- Is my case with an IO desk?
- Since when is it with an IO desk?
- if and when my background check updated?
- is background check same as IBIS check? If not then is IBIS check complete?
- if and when my FBI name check completed?
- is review awaiting some response from external agency
(Consulate post/FBI/BCP)?
- If under "additional review" What kind of "additional review" is it under?
- Expected time-frame for the additional review to be complete?
- Is it being actively worked on or just assigned to an officer and not updates?
- Is it being transferred to other/local office? Is any interview being planned?
I am going for an InfoPass appointment tomorrow and thought of asking the members is the following questions seem appropriate. I dont expect the officer to answer all/any of them..but just thought of listing them..incase I get lucky and get a helpful officer.
- Is my case with an IO desk?
- Since when is it with an IO desk?
- if and when my background check updated?
- is background check same as IBIS check? If not then is IBIS check complete?
- if and when my FBI name check completed?
- is review awaiting some response from external agency
(Consulate post/FBI/BCP)?
- If under "additional review" What kind of "additional review" is it under?
- Expected time-frame for the additional review to be complete?
- Is it being actively worked on or just assigned to an officer and not updates?
- Is it being transferred to other/local office? Is any interview being planned?
dresses love poems for wife. love
lost_in_migration
05-14 09:34 PM
/\/\
more...
makeup love poems for wife. dark love
gc_coming
07-18 06:20 PM
Hi Gurus,
I filed my 485 application on July 2nd. But my employer/lawyer did not attach the employment verification letter in the package. Is USCIS going to reject my application because of that or they will send an RFE. Please advise..
I filed my 485 application on July 2nd. But my employer/lawyer did not attach the employment verification letter in the package. Is USCIS going to reject my application because of that or they will send an RFE. Please advise..
girlfriend love poems for wife. love poems for wife. love poems for wife.
rackinghengxin
04-21 07:21 AM
I see your point, the topic above is debatable, and however, I am in your corner. Pallet Racking (http://www.rackingchina.com)
hairstyles wallpaper Love poem to husband
abandookwala63
10-26 04:50 PM
guys can someone please let me know what is meant by lud.
my fringerprinting was done 2 days ago and received ead no ap yet.
i have seen posts saying online status of i485 been adjusted to lud after
finger printing done.i donot see any changes online for i485 after finger printing.
i highly appreciate if someone let me know what is lud
Online computer message shows EAD oh me and my spouse was mailed on 24th september but till date as on 24th october i hace not received it. i call the USCIS and the second level officer told me cannot mail u another one til me get in returned mail or go and inquire with the postoffice. Post office doea not have any pending mail for our address. USCIS says cannot send a duplicate one. donot know what to do.???? any suggestions.
my fringerprinting was done 2 days ago and received ead no ap yet.
i have seen posts saying online status of i485 been adjusted to lud after
finger printing done.i donot see any changes online for i485 after finger printing.
i highly appreciate if someone let me know what is lud
Online computer message shows EAD oh me and my spouse was mailed on 24th september but till date as on 24th october i hace not received it. i call the USCIS and the second level officer told me cannot mail u another one til me get in returned mail or go and inquire with the postoffice. Post office doea not have any pending mail for our address. USCIS says cannot send a duplicate one. donot know what to do.???? any suggestions.
mantagon
07-15 01:18 PM
I guess you meant I-9 form, and yes, this is correct AFAIK. The employer should contact USCIS about it.
Yes, thats exactly what I meant. Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, thats exactly what I meant. Thanks for the clarification.
b.rich
06-06 12:19 AM
take it all offff... is azzy tryin to seduce us?;D jk.... nice job sofar, very colorful.
No comments:
Post a Comment