gcpain
04-25 04:17 PM
The priority date based on the person first entering/start wrking for US on H1B visa, or converting to a H1 status from any other visa status in the US is an excellent one. This is good idea and fair deal to everyone which in turn follows FIFO method.
wallpaper Funny Mugshots
milind70
04-13 11:05 PM
IV friends ,
Last week my lawyer has asked for copy of Driving License of me and my wife for filing the H1-B and H4 extension.
Then one of my friend told me that INS is asking for copy of the driving license for filing the h1-B extension.
My employer is supposed to file my 3 year Extension based on I-140 in Dec this year( Dec 2007) but my Licences expires on Sept 2008, So I will I be just getting the extension till Sept 2008 and Not 3 year extension.
Any Idea on that
I have already submitted my driving license to my lawyer.
Please Let me know because I was couting on that I will get 3 year extension this time :(
I think i saw a query similar to one you have posted but as far as I know,it is the other way around.DMV will ask you legal proof the USCIS approved petition to limit the duration of your DL or photo id till the expiry of your approved petition.These changes came in effect after 9/11 .I had a Cal DL issued in 2000 expiring in 2005 i had changed from Cal DL to VA DL in 2004. They issued me DL upto 2010 ,just last year (2006) my wife went to get photo ID she was asked two identifcation ID ,proof of legal status and proof of residence. After a few hassles she was given a photo id till Feb 2008 when her H4 expires. Frankly I see no dependency of DL duration to the extension duration. It is quite possible DL is another form of ID issued by a State authority and proved you residency. Thats my take.
Last week my lawyer has asked for copy of Driving License of me and my wife for filing the H1-B and H4 extension.
Then one of my friend told me that INS is asking for copy of the driving license for filing the h1-B extension.
My employer is supposed to file my 3 year Extension based on I-140 in Dec this year( Dec 2007) but my Licences expires on Sept 2008, So I will I be just getting the extension till Sept 2008 and Not 3 year extension.
Any Idea on that
I have already submitted my driving license to my lawyer.
Please Let me know because I was couting on that I will get 3 year extension this time :(
I think i saw a query similar to one you have posted but as far as I know,it is the other way around.DMV will ask you legal proof the USCIS approved petition to limit the duration of your DL or photo id till the expiry of your approved petition.These changes came in effect after 9/11 .I had a Cal DL issued in 2000 expiring in 2005 i had changed from Cal DL to VA DL in 2004. They issued me DL upto 2010 ,just last year (2006) my wife went to get photo ID she was asked two identifcation ID ,proof of legal status and proof of residence. After a few hassles she was given a photo id till Feb 2008 when her H4 expires. Frankly I see no dependency of DL duration to the extension duration. It is quite possible DL is another form of ID issued by a State authority and proved you residency. Thats my take.
santb1975
05-27 12:00 PM
hmmm
2011 Edward Furlong Celebrity Mug
H1bslave
01-07 09:18 AM
I thought you are Bulgarian :confused:
Ok, so I saw the video. I am confused by his analogy and I am a scientist. Maybe it is the lack of data analysis and graphics he keeps referring to. He is not a great speaker. I stopped watching it midway.
BTW, I am a student from a so called 'garbage' Indian education system and a graduate of Duke University.:p
Go figure!
Ok, so I saw the video. I am confused by his analogy and I am a scientist. Maybe it is the lack of data analysis and graphics he keeps referring to. He is not a great speaker. I stopped watching it midway.
BTW, I am a student from a so called 'garbage' Indian education system and a graduate of Duke University.:p
Go figure!
more...
skv
06-18 11:17 AM
I am praying what u say is right!1111
Hope and wish your prayers will be answered. After we have waited long enough to have luck on our side this time !!! :-)
Hope and wish your prayers will be answered. After we have waited long enough to have luck on our side this time !!! :-)
vin13
03-12 12:30 PM
Pappu,
I have been a donor since 2006 and donated about $1000+ through 3 or 5 one time payments and monthly subscription of $20.
But I discontinued my monthly subscription seeing absence of IV core for long time in 2008. But more than that I was completely pissed off with free riders with one time questions and then disappearing, nanny questions, people sharing jokes on this forum, people commenting on the internal matters of their own country and so on. I felt the forum was being used for all other matters except the one issue it was formed to address: "RETROGRESSION in EB IMMIGRATION".
I am fully supportive of paid membership and welcome this step. I thank IV admin for the same.
Now my questions are
What is the vision / mission/ purpose behind the "donor forum"?
whether members will still be able to post questions for free and get answers? And of course vanish after that.
Would the anti immigrants still be able to use our forum and make posts to tease us?
And most importantly do I have start monthly subscription again to gain access to this forum? If yes, Can I just restart my $20 monthly subscription?
I agree with you. I hope we get some clear vision/mission/purpose behing the 'donor forum'
I have been a donor since 2006 and donated about $1000+ through 3 or 5 one time payments and monthly subscription of $20.
But I discontinued my monthly subscription seeing absence of IV core for long time in 2008. But more than that I was completely pissed off with free riders with one time questions and then disappearing, nanny questions, people sharing jokes on this forum, people commenting on the internal matters of their own country and so on. I felt the forum was being used for all other matters except the one issue it was formed to address: "RETROGRESSION in EB IMMIGRATION".
I am fully supportive of paid membership and welcome this step. I thank IV admin for the same.
Now my questions are
What is the vision / mission/ purpose behind the "donor forum"?
whether members will still be able to post questions for free and get answers? And of course vanish after that.
Would the anti immigrants still be able to use our forum and make posts to tease us?
And most importantly do I have start monthly subscription again to gain access to this forum? If yes, Can I just restart my $20 monthly subscription?
I agree with you. I hope we get some clear vision/mission/purpose behing the 'donor forum'
more...
pidurika
07-19 06:07 PM
Contributed one time $100. Will not hesitate to do so in the future. Nice job IV!!!
Most media articles on the 485 issue had one common note "This normally not so vocal group of legal working immigrants have stood up and spoke". IV made sure that will not be so anymore and we have a strong resonating voice that will make a difference
Anil
Most media articles on the 485 issue had one common note "This normally not so vocal group of legal working immigrants have stood up and spoke". IV made sure that will not be so anymore and we have a strong resonating voice that will make a difference
Anil
2010 funny mugshots 14 Mug
eb3_nepa
09-10 10:08 AM
Thanks for the contribution.
Contact us link is on every page at the top.
My apologies to the core team for that oversight. It used to be on the left and once you scroll that link goes out of view.
Contact us link is on every page at the top.
My apologies to the core team for that oversight. It used to be on the left and once you scroll that link goes out of view.
more...
gc_maine2
04-04 10:27 AM
:confused::confused:
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
Very good info, thanks for the posting. BUt its still not clear whether the spouse who is on EAD and does not work at all or for that matter 6 months in a given year, will she/he be eligible for setting up a S -corp??
Thanks
sree
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
Very good info, thanks for the posting. BUt its still not clear whether the spouse who is on EAD and does not work at all or for that matter 6 months in a given year, will she/he be eligible for setting up a S -corp??
Thanks
sree
hair Posted in Celebrity Mugshots
anilnag
02-23 01:49 PM
We can predict EB2 movement but EB3 is kind of gone case for this year too. Without any CIR, we can just pray that EB2 for all countries become current or at least move until july fiasco date (Aug 2007) so that spillover starts trickling to EB3.
Since EB2 I/C after Aug 2007 PD haven't filed their I-485 yet so the visa numbers if any left out by clearing until Aug 2007 should go to EB3I (the most retrogressed country). I don't see it happening this year but in 2010 it's a possibility.
Since EB2 I/C after Aug 2007 PD haven't filed their I-485 yet so the visa numbers if any left out by clearing until Aug 2007 should go to EB3I (the most retrogressed country). I don't see it happening this year but in 2010 it's a possibility.
more...
priti8888
07-23 06:30 PM
This is aboslutly not possible; he/she is trying to fool every one. Before retrogression, the last date to file a 485 for a EB3-Indian with PD 08/2004 was 12/31/2004. From Jan 2005 till July 2007 EB3 Inida was retrogressed for his PD. So he/she could not apply 485 in Feb 2005. The other optins could be he/she may be in EB2 catagory or a Schulde A nurse.
I was in similar time frame; So I know the date well....
correction..I got the EAD in Feb 05, My RD is Dec 04.
I was in similar time frame; So I know the date well....
correction..I got the EAD in Feb 05, My RD is Dec 04.
hot Funny Mugshots
lonedesi
08-05 12:17 PM
^^^^^
more...
house Image 1 for #39;Funny mugshots
chanduv23
05-15 10:16 PM
Maybe someone that has had to go through this can respond.
When you are working for a large(r) corporation, where all fees (including EAD/AP) are paid for by the company, who pays for the MTR?
I was under the impression that the employer pays for the filing, attorney, etc. fees, am I wrong?
Depends on ur employer. Usually after AC21 - it is obvious that there is no fee involved and many companies hire you after ac21 because they do need to deal with stuff like this.
Your employer ONLY needs to give a letter as per the AC21 rule and thats it.
When you are working for a large(r) corporation, where all fees (including EAD/AP) are paid for by the company, who pays for the MTR?
I was under the impression that the employer pays for the filing, attorney, etc. fees, am I wrong?
Depends on ur employer. Usually after AC21 - it is obvious that there is no fee involved and many companies hire you after ac21 because they do need to deal with stuff like this.
Your employer ONLY needs to give a letter as per the AC21 rule and thats it.
tattoo Funny Mugshots
anujcb
03-15 11:24 AM
did it start yet? any updates?
more...
pictures funny mug shots. funny
gc28262
08-12 11:40 AM
He has already been able to pass the law. Now whether he calls them chopshop or backtracks, or praises them.......it does not do anything. This will soon be a law.
By the very nature of this senator, he didn't even have to rephrase it. If he did that, there is a reason for it.
By the very nature of this senator, he didn't even have to rephrase it. If he did that, there is a reason for it.
dresses Busted, Funny Mug Shots,
Libra
09-10 02:17 PM
thanks, will see you in DC.
more...
makeup Funny Mugshots; Funny Mugshots
Ramba
10-21 06:18 PM
Thanks Ramba for your insights.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
If a guy lawfully changed the job after 180 days of 485 filing, it is remain valid even if employer revokes already approved 140. Only solution to overcome this MTR, is taking this to court. In the case of dispute between employee and employer regarding "intent", the employee will have more leverage if he had a considerable period of employment relationship sponsor.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
If a guy lawfully changed the job after 180 days of 485 filing, it is remain valid even if employer revokes already approved 140. Only solution to overcome this MTR, is taking this to court. In the case of dispute between employee and employer regarding "intent", the employee will have more leverage if he had a considerable period of employment relationship sponsor.
girlfriend Funny Mug Shots
ArkBird
09-04 05:09 PM
You are 100% right but no one thought their Labor/GC pain will last THIS long. The most unfortunate/unlucky part in this whole journey was 245(i) amnesty in 2001. This is a tsunami which choked the labor pipe (Remember the good old days of Backlog Reduction Center and quest for that elusive screen shot from the BRC for case? :) ) & imbalanced the demand/supply equilibrium for EB3. This is the reason the variable of priority date became constant and stuck to 2001..
I think there is more smartness needed than luck in the greencard process. If you look at the posts in this thread there are some people that came to USA in 1990s and still waiting, while some that came much later are on their way to citizenship. Some got the EB2 route and are happy and some in EB3 have only gloom before them.
This in my opinion has helped smart folks among us:
- They applied for GC as soon as possible. Those who waited did not give importance to Greencard as soon as they started a job in USA are now paying for their mistakes. During the initial days of career I have seen people saying that GC is not important to them etc but when their H1B is about to expire they panic and get desperate for Green Card.
- Before pre-PERM era in 2005, smart folks took up jobs in states where labor certification had no backlog. They are now either waiting for citizenship or already citizens. On the other hand people in states like CA, NY etc suffered due to labor backlogs and far from getting greencard in hand.
- Any company can be good or bad for an individual. It it not a question of consulting vs fortune 500 or small vs big size of a company. Smart folks know what matters them the most when they join a company. When company sees them as a valuable asset, it applies for them. I have seen where company applied for GC as soon as the employee joined it. And I have seen posts where people had to wait for several years before company applied.
- People who took advantage of the Labor substitution got faster labors. Some could take advantage of EB2 labors and they are very fortunate. This is in no way endorsing the labor substitution rule, but in pre 2007 times nobody was protesting against it. This is a sad reality.
- Smart folks took the risk and changed jobs wth EB2 job requirements, so that they can file in EB2. Such folks with 2007 PD are happy today and people with 2003 PDs in EB3 will have to wait for a long time.
- If you read posts on this thread, many people have posted that they feel they are being screwed by their employer or lawyer. But hardly anyone has said they took any action against it. This is also a sad reality where we as a community have failed and will continue to suffer.
- Many folks have said that they thought they were in EB2. But found they are in EB3. This shows another weakness of our community and lack of awareness. IV forum tries to spread the awareness but unless an individual takes initiative, they will suffer.
Many people were able to file I485 in July 2007 due to IV effort. Imagine a 2004 EB3 India person without EAD today? How will he survive a job loss on H1B in a bad economy? We should take a lesson from that event and try for another big push. There is no other shortcut for us. It is shocking to find people on this thread that are in this country for more than 10 years and without a green card. These folks should be the most vocal folks in this effort.
-
I think there is more smartness needed than luck in the greencard process. If you look at the posts in this thread there are some people that came to USA in 1990s and still waiting, while some that came much later are on their way to citizenship. Some got the EB2 route and are happy and some in EB3 have only gloom before them.
This in my opinion has helped smart folks among us:
- They applied for GC as soon as possible. Those who waited did not give importance to Greencard as soon as they started a job in USA are now paying for their mistakes. During the initial days of career I have seen people saying that GC is not important to them etc but when their H1B is about to expire they panic and get desperate for Green Card.
- Before pre-PERM era in 2005, smart folks took up jobs in states where labor certification had no backlog. They are now either waiting for citizenship or already citizens. On the other hand people in states like CA, NY etc suffered due to labor backlogs and far from getting greencard in hand.
- Any company can be good or bad for an individual. It it not a question of consulting vs fortune 500 or small vs big size of a company. Smart folks know what matters them the most when they join a company. When company sees them as a valuable asset, it applies for them. I have seen where company applied for GC as soon as the employee joined it. And I have seen posts where people had to wait for several years before company applied.
- People who took advantage of the Labor substitution got faster labors. Some could take advantage of EB2 labors and they are very fortunate. This is in no way endorsing the labor substitution rule, but in pre 2007 times nobody was protesting against it. This is a sad reality.
- Smart folks took the risk and changed jobs wth EB2 job requirements, so that they can file in EB2. Such folks with 2007 PD are happy today and people with 2003 PDs in EB3 will have to wait for a long time.
- If you read posts on this thread, many people have posted that they feel they are being screwed by their employer or lawyer. But hardly anyone has said they took any action against it. This is also a sad reality where we as a community have failed and will continue to suffer.
- Many folks have said that they thought they were in EB2. But found they are in EB3. This shows another weakness of our community and lack of awareness. IV forum tries to spread the awareness but unless an individual takes initiative, they will suffer.
Many people were able to file I485 in July 2007 due to IV effort. Imagine a 2004 EB3 India person without EAD today? How will he survive a job loss on H1B in a bad economy? We should take a lesson from that event and try for another big push. There is no other shortcut for us. It is shocking to find people on this thread that are in this country for more than 10 years and without a green card. These folks should be the most vocal folks in this effort.
-
hairstyles 2010 Funny Mug Shots (23 pics)
ItIsNotFunny
10-22 09:42 AM
Hey, tx for the PM, I sent the email, do we need to send a letter too?>
I think emails are fine for now. We want to acknowledge them and trying to avoid embarassing them.
I think emails are fine for now. We want to acknowledge them and trying to avoid embarassing them.
cheg
07-23 04:00 PM
Thanks for the quick reply. So in my case since my husband doesn't have a RD yet for our I-485 then once we do get our RD, we can calculate that 2 yrs from that time we'll have our card ordered as well. :D :D :D I'm crossing my fingers!
my PD Aug 2004
RD Feb 2005
eb3 india
Last fingerprint in March 2007
my PD Aug 2004
RD Feb 2005
eb3 india
Last fingerprint in March 2007
vbkris77
06-25 06:48 PM
Reverse Brian Drain. I believe it is already been identified and some of the State governors wrote to Washington that they are observing a reverse brain drain and it is not good for the country.
I just started my GC Process, But I kept a 5 Year time frame to try this out. That is my breaking point. I am sure everybody will have some or other breaking point. I don't think I want to browse IV website lifetime.
We do need to fight and give a sincere try to achieve this before the whole thing breaks out. But if it breaks out, I am sure both ends lose. I lose an opportunity to enjoy American dream.
Of course, America loses, jobs that I am indirectly creating. Taxes that I am paying. Social security. More than everything my experience.
In all this, my home country gains. All my savings and experience will work for India. I think it is an opportunity loss for America.
Imagine, 1M people, with an average saving of 20K per year with atleast 10 Years of compounding and then sending all this money to Home country to go back and settle there. It will create enough financial turbulence for any country.
On the contrary, Imagine the other way, if they give say citizenship faster, All those Indian Savings, repatriate to America. All of a sudden, America will add lot of fortune to their GDP for free.
I just started my GC Process, But I kept a 5 Year time frame to try this out. That is my breaking point. I am sure everybody will have some or other breaking point. I don't think I want to browse IV website lifetime.
We do need to fight and give a sincere try to achieve this before the whole thing breaks out. But if it breaks out, I am sure both ends lose. I lose an opportunity to enjoy American dream.
Of course, America loses, jobs that I am indirectly creating. Taxes that I am paying. Social security. More than everything my experience.
In all this, my home country gains. All my savings and experience will work for India. I think it is an opportunity loss for America.
Imagine, 1M people, with an average saving of 20K per year with atleast 10 Years of compounding and then sending all this money to Home country to go back and settle there. It will create enough financial turbulence for any country.
On the contrary, Imagine the other way, if they give say citizenship faster, All those Indian Savings, repatriate to America. All of a sudden, America will add lot of fortune to their GDP for free.
No comments:
Post a Comment