manand24
10-22 09:34 AM
See Signature
wallpaper Tribal tattoos that make use
green_card_curious
03-08 10:17 AM
This is EXACTLY the confusion. My case is explained below:
1. I am on H1-B - havent used my EAD yet
2. My wife has and is currently using her EAD though
3. We filed I-140 (NIW) and I-485, concurrently for both of us in July 2007.
So what happens to our I-485's and her EAD? My attorney says she should be alright (legally and work eligibility wise) till we appeal and get the final decision. But we are hearing different things at these forums. So really not sure...
Ideas? Suggestions? Examples?
Thanks,
1. I am on H1-B - havent used my EAD yet
2. My wife has and is currently using her EAD though
3. We filed I-140 (NIW) and I-485, concurrently for both of us in July 2007.
So what happens to our I-485's and her EAD? My attorney says she should be alright (legally and work eligibility wise) till we appeal and get the final decision. But we are hearing different things at these forums. So really not sure...
Ideas? Suggestions? Examples?
Thanks,
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAFRGrOCvWH8ptemMVYBaNzPzfcEO-8jOCB7DgmWjN9IJEJun5UNGTAm71p_F4YYb_z_ZbSalWhzjQzmuTCx3DLpiKE6Aly3uvtyYA7N1p9gb5dg3LfrFy3-zDfLdvJbGwi1TXU9IU5uY/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAFRGrOCvWH8ptemMVYBaNzPzfcEO-8jOCB7DgmWjN9IJEJun5UNGTAm71p_F4YYb_z_ZbSalWhzjQzmuTCx3DLpiKE6Aly3uvtyYA7N1p9gb5dg3LfrFy3-zDfLdvJbGwi1TXU9IU5uY/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/AVvXsEhAFRGrOCvWH8ptemMVYBaNzPzfcEO-8jOCB7DgmWjN9IJEJun5UNGTAm71p_F4YYb_z_ZbSalWhzjQzmuTCx3DLpiKE6Aly3uvtyYA7N1p9gb5dg3LfrFy3-zDfLdvJbGwi1TXU9IU5uY/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAFRGrOCvWH8ptemMVYBaNzPzfcEO-8jOCB7DgmWjN9IJEJun5UNGTAm71p_F4YYb_z_ZbSalWhzjQzmuTCx3DLpiKE6Aly3uvtyYA7N1p9gb5dg3LfrFy3-zDfLdvJbGwi1TXU9IU5uY/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)
2011 cool back tattoos
_shoonya
11-14 10:44 PM
Deleted
more...
kurtz_wolfgang
08-15 01:05 PM
Please explain, Why did I get red? Is it for asking question? Guys, I am new.
nath.exists
04-09 11:01 AM
short clip Telecasting in desi channels will be a good idea. as i know lot of indians watch desi channels.I still know many in my relatives who are suffering from green card retrogression but are ignorant of immigrationvoice.org and core team.all of them have desi channels through dish. we can telecast a short 10 second add in these channels and also telecast in u.s. channels to get widespread desi support and also all other green card retrogression victims support.by telecasting in these channels many ppl back in india will also know about the problems we indians are facing in u.s.a due to gc retro.we have to use popular media like t.v and internet as much as possible to get fellow victims and would-be victims know about us.yesterday i have posted in various communities like 'indians in america','hyderbadi's abroad' in orkut.com about immigrationvoice.org.similarly we can target many social networking sites,rediff.com,yahoo.com and other websites.chain mails like forwarding the plight of gc victims to all other friends and so on...and sending offline messsages through yahoo messenger etc .what say ???
more...
June05
08-06 11:59 AM
The only LUD was on my 140, which is on 7/13 - There was no LUD on any other applications H1, EAD, AP - One LUD today after the status change. Hope this helps.
I am not talking about LUD's.
When you check your status online - it says - YOUR CASES WAS RECEIVED BY USCIS ON XXX DATE. That is the date I was trying to find out.
I am not talking about LUD's.
When you check your status online - it says - YOUR CASES WAS RECEIVED BY USCIS ON XXX DATE. That is the date I was trying to find out.
2010 cool tattoos for arms. cool
rajuram
01-14 03:47 PM
It is just frustrating to visit these forums and see nothing is happening. We need more members and more money. But if that happens in 10 years, what is the use. Not much anyone can do. Might as well as start packing.
more...
IN2US
07-26 05:23 PM
You can get EAD even if your I-140 is pending.Correct me if I am wrong.
That is correct.
That is correct.
hair Angelina Jolie Wanted Tattoos
svr_76
06-17 03:04 PM
I had mine today. The Officer answered the following questions-
1. Assigned to Officer - Yes
2. Status of various checks- She said she could see 2 checks and both are complete FBI and NameCheck. She did nt say anything about IBIS (She said - "I just see 2 checks and both are done and good, sir. There might be other checks but its not showing up on my screen)
3. No transfered/interview scheduled.
4. Opened up a SR for me for followup.
1. Assigned to Officer - Yes
2. Status of various checks- She said she could see 2 checks and both are complete FBI and NameCheck. She did nt say anything about IBIS (She said - "I just see 2 checks and both are done and good, sir. There might be other checks but its not showing up on my screen)
3. No transfered/interview scheduled.
4. Opened up a SR for me for followup.
more...
m79
10-06 05:23 AM
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
Hi
I am also in the same situation like you. My wife got AP and mine is still pending. Please let me know if you get yours approved.
Thank you.
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
Hi
I am also in the same situation like you. My wife got AP and mine is still pending. Please let me know if you get yours approved.
Thank you.
hot Amazing tattoo designs for
chris
12-31 01:21 PM
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
Is your case complicated
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?[/QUOTE]
Family of three.
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
Is your case complicated
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?[/QUOTE]
Family of three.
more...
house cool tattoos for arms.
go_guy123
01-11 09:47 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
tattoo small tattoo gallery cool
vb1589
05-04 09:13 AM
Good job cagedcactus.
As I said it was work of a fellow member. But I dont see why you cant use the same letter. If you think this is a good format, please go ahead and use it.
thanks.....
As I said it was work of a fellow member. But I dont see why you cant use the same letter. If you think this is a good format, please go ahead and use it.
thanks.....
more...
pictures cool tattoos for arms. tattoos
Dipika
11-03 01:21 PM
i have not done visa extention for my mother in law, but i had asked lawyer about it when last year my mother in law was here.
Lawyer said it's possible to get extention. and they need traveler's check of $5K on my mother in law name to send for extention, which proves she has enough money to stay and travel further in USA.
i had not followed it, but this time i'm going to do it when my in laws visit again.
I would say it would be batter to go through lawyer as they have different tricks to get it faster and easily.
Lawyer said it's possible to get extention. and they need traveler's check of $5K on my mother in law name to send for extention, which proves she has enough money to stay and travel further in USA.
i had not followed it, but this time i'm going to do it when my in laws visit again.
I would say it would be batter to go through lawyer as they have different tricks to get it faster and easily.
dresses cool tattoos for arms. tattoo
hanu0913
10-08 03:12 PM
Your sentences are confusing. Please no offense.
You can file your wife's I-485(derivative adjustment) once the PD is current. So just relax and keep on looking Visa Bulletin every month to check if the priority dates are current.
My case : got GC on June. Filed wife's case in June and she has an EAD.
All the best.
so here is exact question , what about if i get GC approval before my PD gets current?
You can file your wife's I-485(derivative adjustment) once the PD is current. So just relax and keep on looking Visa Bulletin every month to check if the priority dates are current.
My case : got GC on June. Filed wife's case in June and she has an EAD.
All the best.
so here is exact question , what about if i get GC approval before my PD gets current?
more...
makeup cool tattoos for arms. tribal
copsmart
02-20 08:44 PM
You are not alone�
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
How about the opposite problem. The LC wages are lower that what I am being paid. the LC reflects what I was being paid at the time it was filed. not sure if the lawyer screwed up. Right now, I am doing a similar job (non-IT, non-technical), but with wider responsibility and earning ~ 40% more. What now??
-a
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
How about the opposite problem. The LC wages are lower that what I am being paid. the LC reflects what I was being paid at the time it was filed. not sure if the lawyer screwed up. Right now, I am doing a similar job (non-IT, non-technical), but with wider responsibility and earning ~ 40% more. What now??
-a
girlfriend arms. cool tattoos ideas
alisa
03-26 11:10 PM
I was reading up on gift tax. Normally, it is the donor (the person giving the gift) that pays the gift tax (if at all.)
What if your family (who lives outside the USA, and does not have greencard/citizenship) sends you some money, in excess of $12k.
Now, they don't file US taxes, so they don't pay any gift tax.
And this is not declared as an income in your income tax statement.
Do we have to pay any kind of gift tax or anything on it?
Do we have to declare it anywhere?
What if your family (who lives outside the USA, and does not have greencard/citizenship) sends you some money, in excess of $12k.
Now, they don't file US taxes, so they don't pay any gift tax.
And this is not declared as an income in your income tax statement.
Do we have to pay any kind of gift tax or anything on it?
Do we have to declare it anywhere?
hairstyles lebron james tattoo 002 arms
joshraj
10-11 03:28 PM
Thanks Shirish :)
gxtrader
08-17 02:27 PM
HOW your answer relates to my question?
Think, deside and do and don't think again! But Review it.
..Maybe he thought he heard you say..
"Don't think, decide and do and don't think again! And don't review it. :)
Don't worry too much..worst case is to re-file ead & ap w/ newer fees.
He'll eventually get GC & will be driving a Lexas in Dallus, Texus ;).
Think, deside and do and don't think again! But Review it.
..Maybe he thought he heard you say..
"Don't think, decide and do and don't think again! And don't review it. :)
Don't worry too much..worst case is to re-file ead & ap w/ newer fees.
He'll eventually get GC & will be driving a Lexas in Dallus, Texus ;).
FinalGC
10-16 01:52 PM
Kambi:
Based on current stats,
LC - It will take about 4 months from the date you initiate your case with your lawyer
140- Eb2 or eb 3 will take from 4 weeks to 4 months
485 - If u are from India or China and based on current situation for Eb2 it could take upto 4 years and 6-7 years for EB3. If you are from Rest of the world it would be 1-2 years.
However, if the SKIL bill passes, things could change and you could get the whole GC within 2 years or so.........Keep hopeful...that is what I am doing after 8 years on H1........with a MBA from a US University!!
Based on current stats,
LC - It will take about 4 months from the date you initiate your case with your lawyer
140- Eb2 or eb 3 will take from 4 weeks to 4 months
485 - If u are from India or China and based on current situation for Eb2 it could take upto 4 years and 6-7 years for EB3. If you are from Rest of the world it would be 1-2 years.
However, if the SKIL bill passes, things could change and you could get the whole GC within 2 years or so.........Keep hopeful...that is what I am doing after 8 years on H1........with a MBA from a US University!!
0 comments:
Post a Comment