rheoretro
09-13 05:22 PM
my american colleagues do know about immigration problem.....they dont give a jack.........afterall they dont even socialize much with co-workers....i am here in alabama.......i dont know how it is in other places...
I can't help you because of your situation. Much better in other places.
I can't help you because of your situation. Much better in other places.
sdrblr
10-08 11:03 PM
It is all about number game and you(IV or other lobby groups) may not have the # to make lot of noise for that to happen.
I know EAD is not for CP filers today. I also believe EAD is one of the things that USCIS can issue with an admin fix.
I know EAD is not for CP filers today. I also believe EAD is one of the things that USCIS can issue with an admin fix.
sheeba
03-11 12:09 PM
Indian applicants should check “Does Not Apply” to the prompt for “Full Name in Native Alphabet.”
refer the website
http://www.vfs-usa.co.in/USIndia/applicationformDS160.html
refer the website
http://www.vfs-usa.co.in/USIndia/applicationformDS160.html
seebi
03-14 09:19 AM
Thanks desi3933 for the USCIS links.
more...
immiguy
07-18 01:39 PM
Thanks for the replies. Since all the dates are current under the July bulletin, how are the 485s processed ?
1) Order of priority dates and EBs?
2) Order of the date on which the 485 applications were received?
1) Order of priority dates and EBs?
2) Order of the date on which the 485 applications were received?
cache22
07-18 11:30 PM
Hi,
Get yourself a good lawyer. As far as I know Up to 180 days of out of status can be managed. As your case is in removal proceedings, it may further complicate your situation.
Even if you get an Advance Parole, do not use it. Your reentry will have issue. You may send a private message.
All the best !!!
Thanks for great services..
My situation is as under : " My case is in removal proceedings for violating H1b status for 3 months due to laid off situation, i am working on H1b now and my labor is approved and I-140 is pending, now my priority date is become current for I-485 filing", now who will adjudicate my case, INS or EOIR court, where will i file my I-485.
will court close my removal proceedings based on PD current..
i will really really apprecate your help.
Get yourself a good lawyer. As far as I know Up to 180 days of out of status can be managed. As your case is in removal proceedings, it may further complicate your situation.
Even if you get an Advance Parole, do not use it. Your reentry will have issue. You may send a private message.
All the best !!!
Thanks for great services..
My situation is as under : " My case is in removal proceedings for violating H1b status for 3 months due to laid off situation, i am working on H1b now and my labor is approved and I-140 is pending, now my priority date is become current for I-485 filing", now who will adjudicate my case, INS or EOIR court, where will i file my I-485.
will court close my removal proceedings based on PD current..
i will really really apprecate your help.
more...
mhathi
04-15 11:59 AM
I had the same problem.
You can always paper file. That will solve the issue. If you want to E-file, here's how I did it with Trubotax:
put '0' for wife's AGI and e-file.
IRS will respond saying that last year's AGI and ur answer does not match. You have to send in form 8453-OL to sign your return. This means that your return is conditionally accepted, but you MUST mail the signature form for it to be complete.
(turbotax will provide you the form). Print it out, fill it and sign (you and spouse) and send it in.
Thats it!
You can always paper file. That will solve the issue. If you want to E-file, here's how I did it with Trubotax:
put '0' for wife's AGI and e-file.
IRS will respond saying that last year's AGI and ur answer does not match. You have to send in form 8453-OL to sign your return. This means that your return is conditionally accepted, but you MUST mail the signature form for it to be complete.
(turbotax will provide you the form). Print it out, fill it and sign (you and spouse) and send it in.
Thats it!
sri1309
11-04 07:01 PM
Please delete this thread, Admin.
We believe this guy did it by mistake.. pls dont shout at him..
We believe this guy did it by mistake.. pls dont shout at him..
more...
veni001
01-30 07:15 PM
I am actually doing this right now. See my signature.
As long as your employer document all stuff, i.e what happens to current EB3 position etc.. you should be OK, if not, even after i140 approval USCIS can come back and revoke approved i140( for fraud);)
As long as your employer document all stuff, i.e what happens to current EB3 position etc.. you should be OK, if not, even after i140 approval USCIS can come back and revoke approved i140( for fraud);)
sankap
10-28 12:01 PM
Skilled immigration: Green-card blues | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/17366155)
Skilled immigration
Green-card blues
A backlash against foreign workers dims business hopes for immigration reform
The Economist: October 30, 2010
Oct 28th 2010 | Washington, dc
BAD as relations are between business and the Democrats, immigration was supposed to be an exception. On that topic the two have long had a marriage of convenience, with business backing comprehensive reform in order to obtain more skilled foreign workers.
That, at least, was what was meant to happen. In March Chuck Schumer, a Democratic senator, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican, proposed a multi-faceted reform that would toughen border controls and create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants while granting two longstanding goals of business: automatic green cards (that is, permanent residence) for students who earned advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering or maths in America, and an elimination of country quotas on green cards. The quotas bear no relationship to demand, leaving backlogs of eight to ten years for applicants from China and India. Barack Obama immediately announced his support.
But the proposal never became a bill, much less law. Mr Graham developed cold feet and withdrew his support; he was concerned that the Democrats were moving too quickly, as the economic misery that has turned Americans against foreign trade spread to dislike of foreign workers. Last year Congress made it harder for banks that had received money from the Troubled Asset Relief Programme to hire workers on H-1B visas, the most popular type for skilled foreign workers. In January the Citizenship and Immigration Service barred the use of H-1Bs for workers based on a client�s premises instead of their own company�s, a move aimed at outsourcing companies, many of them based in India.
In August even Mr Schumer, needing to look tough on outsourcing, pushed through a bill sharply raising H-1B fees on firms that depend heavily on the visas. Perhaps the most naked election-year hostility to foreigners appeared during the debate in September over a Democratic bill in the Senate that would have rewarded companies for firing foreign-based workers and replacing them with Americans. Charles Grassley, a Republican senator, responded with a proposal to prohibit any company that had laid off Americans from hiring visa workers at all. The bill did not win enough votes to break a filibuster.
Tightened restrictions, political aggravation and economic conditions seem to be having an effect. In 2009 the number of employment-based green cards and H-1B visas was the lowest in years (see chart). It took an unusually long time for the quota of H-1Bs for the fiscal year that ended on September 30th to be used up. Several Indian outsourcing companies have made a point of boosting local hiring at American facilities.
This is partly the result of the recession, which has hurt demand for all types of workers. But in a recent report the Hamilton Project, a moderately liberal research group, notes that the number of foreign workers in America has been declining for some time. This might reflect America�s diminished appeal to the world�s most sought-after workers, as well as brightening prospects in their own countries. A survey for the pro-immigration Kauffman Foundation in 2007 found that only a tiny proportion of foreign students planned to stay in the United States. This almost certainly extracts an economic toll, since immigrants are more likely than others to start businesses or file patents.
America�s immigration policies have long put a higher priority on family reunification than on employment. Legal immigrants to the country are more likely to have failed to finish high school than either native-born Americans or immigrants to other English-speaking countries. Immigrants to Canada are far more likely to have a college degree.
Legislators from both parties have at various times advanced proposals that would smooth the way for skilled migrants, but they have usually foundered on the more intractable problem of dealing with illegal immigration. �These two issues can and should be separate,� says Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project. �We are giving up economic growth by putting the two issues together.�
Democratic Hispanic legislators oppose separating them for fear of losing business support for comprehensive reform. In principle, then, a Republican takeover of the House might increase the likelihood of a stand-alone bill on skilled immigration. That, however, is not the Republicans� priority. Lamar Smith, the Republican who would probably become chairman of the House judiciary committee, is more focused on deporting illegal immigrants and strengthening the border.
Still, it would be premature to write off the odds of immigration reform. If Mr Obama is to accomplish anything in the next Congress, he needs to find common ground with Republicans on something. Business-friendly immigration reform might just qualify.
Skilled immigration
Green-card blues
A backlash against foreign workers dims business hopes for immigration reform
The Economist: October 30, 2010
Oct 28th 2010 | Washington, dc
BAD as relations are between business and the Democrats, immigration was supposed to be an exception. On that topic the two have long had a marriage of convenience, with business backing comprehensive reform in order to obtain more skilled foreign workers.
That, at least, was what was meant to happen. In March Chuck Schumer, a Democratic senator, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican, proposed a multi-faceted reform that would toughen border controls and create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants while granting two longstanding goals of business: automatic green cards (that is, permanent residence) for students who earned advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering or maths in America, and an elimination of country quotas on green cards. The quotas bear no relationship to demand, leaving backlogs of eight to ten years for applicants from China and India. Barack Obama immediately announced his support.
But the proposal never became a bill, much less law. Mr Graham developed cold feet and withdrew his support; he was concerned that the Democrats were moving too quickly, as the economic misery that has turned Americans against foreign trade spread to dislike of foreign workers. Last year Congress made it harder for banks that had received money from the Troubled Asset Relief Programme to hire workers on H-1B visas, the most popular type for skilled foreign workers. In January the Citizenship and Immigration Service barred the use of H-1Bs for workers based on a client�s premises instead of their own company�s, a move aimed at outsourcing companies, many of them based in India.
In August even Mr Schumer, needing to look tough on outsourcing, pushed through a bill sharply raising H-1B fees on firms that depend heavily on the visas. Perhaps the most naked election-year hostility to foreigners appeared during the debate in September over a Democratic bill in the Senate that would have rewarded companies for firing foreign-based workers and replacing them with Americans. Charles Grassley, a Republican senator, responded with a proposal to prohibit any company that had laid off Americans from hiring visa workers at all. The bill did not win enough votes to break a filibuster.
Tightened restrictions, political aggravation and economic conditions seem to be having an effect. In 2009 the number of employment-based green cards and H-1B visas was the lowest in years (see chart). It took an unusually long time for the quota of H-1Bs for the fiscal year that ended on September 30th to be used up. Several Indian outsourcing companies have made a point of boosting local hiring at American facilities.
This is partly the result of the recession, which has hurt demand for all types of workers. But in a recent report the Hamilton Project, a moderately liberal research group, notes that the number of foreign workers in America has been declining for some time. This might reflect America�s diminished appeal to the world�s most sought-after workers, as well as brightening prospects in their own countries. A survey for the pro-immigration Kauffman Foundation in 2007 found that only a tiny proportion of foreign students planned to stay in the United States. This almost certainly extracts an economic toll, since immigrants are more likely than others to start businesses or file patents.
America�s immigration policies have long put a higher priority on family reunification than on employment. Legal immigrants to the country are more likely to have failed to finish high school than either native-born Americans or immigrants to other English-speaking countries. Immigrants to Canada are far more likely to have a college degree.
Legislators from both parties have at various times advanced proposals that would smooth the way for skilled migrants, but they have usually foundered on the more intractable problem of dealing with illegal immigration. �These two issues can and should be separate,� says Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project. �We are giving up economic growth by putting the two issues together.�
Democratic Hispanic legislators oppose separating them for fear of losing business support for comprehensive reform. In principle, then, a Republican takeover of the House might increase the likelihood of a stand-alone bill on skilled immigration. That, however, is not the Republicans� priority. Lamar Smith, the Republican who would probably become chairman of the House judiciary committee, is more focused on deporting illegal immigrants and strengthening the border.
Still, it would be premature to write off the odds of immigration reform. If Mr Obama is to accomplish anything in the next Congress, he needs to find common ground with Republicans on something. Business-friendly immigration reform might just qualify.
more...
Sachin_Stock
02-02 07:06 PM
Content removed.
gc_kaavaali
11-21 10:01 PM
Happy Thanksgiving to all IV members.
more...
GCA
05-18 06:04 PM
Since the queue for EB3 India is very long, and if many EB3 India people change over to EB2, that will slow down EB2 India and this is what the May 2011 Visa Bulletin also says.
But shouldnt this make EB3 India go faster?
Then why do we see slow movement in EB3 India?
EB3 is currently in mid 2002. All EB3 filers till 2003 and may be early 2004 have waited enough and don't want to port at this time. till mid 2003, most of them received the GC during 2007 From my perspective, I don't even care if it ever comes. Couple of more years on EAD and I am set to go back. Having said that, I will still take the gc anytime it comes and if comes:). Just not after it.
EB3 to EB2 porting is more done by filers from 2004 thru' 2007 and for a good reason too. ( they will not get in a decade if they stay in EB3 unless recapture or other bills goes thru').
So to answer the question, porting will not easy the traffic until the date moves to end of 2003, then you can see some improvement as some of the original EB3's have made a smart choice and probably weree citizens by then.
But shouldnt this make EB3 India go faster?
Then why do we see slow movement in EB3 India?
EB3 is currently in mid 2002. All EB3 filers till 2003 and may be early 2004 have waited enough and don't want to port at this time. till mid 2003, most of them received the GC during 2007 From my perspective, I don't even care if it ever comes. Couple of more years on EAD and I am set to go back. Having said that, I will still take the gc anytime it comes and if comes:). Just not after it.
EB3 to EB2 porting is more done by filers from 2004 thru' 2007 and for a good reason too. ( they will not get in a decade if they stay in EB3 unless recapture or other bills goes thru').
So to answer the question, porting will not easy the traffic until the date moves to end of 2003, then you can see some improvement as some of the original EB3's have made a smart choice and probably weree citizens by then.
Jonas73
04-21 06:17 PM
Hi, I just got my LC approved after about 7 months of waiting as EB3, My PD is Sep 08. Its now time to start filing for the I-140, what can I do to port my EB3 to EB2? (I'm from Europe and I have 6 years of work experience and a MS Finance degree from a US university).
Do I need to "change" job within my company?
Do I need to redo all the work (job postings, PERM application etc) even that I have my LC approved?
Do I need to "change" job within my company?
Do I need to redo all the work (job postings, PERM application etc) even that I have my LC approved?
more...
lagsam
12-17 03:35 PM
There is no problem re-entering with a valid AP, even if the validity date is the day you re-enter.
You will have a problem if your AP is expired. My daughter came back with just one month on her AP and she was stamped with extra 6 months on I-94. But I don't know the reason for that.
You will have a problem if your AP is expired. My daughter came back with just one month on her AP and she was stamped with extra 6 months on I-94. But I don't know the reason for that.
ars01
06-30 06:23 PM
Well said EB3 retro!! I like you approach. I have lost interest of GC. And actually, I don't care at all what happens to GC as I don't want to make my life decisions based on USCIS guidelines. I mean, I came here 11 years ago and I think US has lost the efficiencies it was known for. Very sad, but true.
more...
caliducas
06-06 04:56 PM
I believe unless you filed I-485 under the revised fee structure last year, you need to pay for EAD and AP renewal every time you have to renew.
I'm renewing my wife's and my EAD through my attorney. We'll pay only this time for the new fee and then on will be free. Same is with AP. Pay once under the new fee, and then you can renew it for free. The only fee you'll pay is your attorney's, which you don't have to do. You can efile by yourself like many other people have done.
I'm renewing my wife's and my EAD through my attorney. We'll pay only this time for the new fee and then on will be free. Same is with AP. Pay once under the new fee, and then you can renew it for free. The only fee you'll pay is your attorney's, which you don't have to do. You can efile by yourself like many other people have done.
yabadaba
05-22 09:03 AM
Sounds like a great positive move with Patton Boggs
this was really old news. its been on our front page for a number of months now. I was just pointing out to members to please read the front page for updated information.
this was really old news. its been on our front page for a number of months now. I was just pointing out to members to please read the front page for updated information.
me_myself
01-18 08:18 AM
Spoke with a lawyer - he said have a letter from my company saying i was training our indian vendor and now returning back to resume work in US. Also have proof/documents that shows my US company exists and a verification letter from them.
My question is (i forgot to ask him) what sort of documents i need from my company which shows the company exists - i dont think my company will give out its Tax Returns. What other documents should i ask for?
Thanks.
My question is (i forgot to ask him) what sort of documents i need from my company which shows the company exists - i dont think my company will give out its Tax Returns. What other documents should i ask for?
Thanks.
Saarissimo
06-03 05:08 PM
Thank you all for your replies and comments. A few things I know based on previous research:
1. Any person, whether in the US or not, can be an investor (and hence hold equity) of an LLC or C corp. When it comes to an S-corp, all owners must be US citizens. So owning a stake in a company has nothing to do with work permit (i.e. H1-B)
2. Any company that can prove employer-employee relationship can sponsor H1B for its employees, even if the employees are owners in the company. There are many start-ups in the US where some of the founders work in the company on an H1-B. However, the lion share of those are C-Corps
My questions are:
1. Can an LLC sponsor an H1B visa for one of its (major) shareholders
2. If so, H1B visa requires proof of salary, whereas owners in an LLC cannot be employed by the LLC. Any ideas on how to solve this paradox?
I hope this all makes sense.
Thank you all in advance.
1. Any person, whether in the US or not, can be an investor (and hence hold equity) of an LLC or C corp. When it comes to an S-corp, all owners must be US citizens. So owning a stake in a company has nothing to do with work permit (i.e. H1-B)
2. Any company that can prove employer-employee relationship can sponsor H1B for its employees, even if the employees are owners in the company. There are many start-ups in the US where some of the founders work in the company on an H1-B. However, the lion share of those are C-Corps
My questions are:
1. Can an LLC sponsor an H1B visa for one of its (major) shareholders
2. If so, H1B visa requires proof of salary, whereas owners in an LLC cannot be employed by the LLC. Any ideas on how to solve this paradox?
I hope this all makes sense.
Thank you all in advance.
gondalguru
07-26 06:56 PM
superdude,
I did change the title. I apologise about the original title which i accept was ambiguous.
however, I was not making any assumption.
if you read my message carefully, i asked a question. I asked if W2s and/or paystubs would be enough to prove that you have always been in lawful status. And I put a context around it by saying"assuming i do not have all of my I797s and I94s". What I meant was "in the case I do not have all of my prior I797s and I94s"
No need to worry. Keep all the documents - paystubs - visa stamps etc since your last entry. Thats all uscis asks.
I did change the title. I apologise about the original title which i accept was ambiguous.
however, I was not making any assumption.
if you read my message carefully, i asked a question. I asked if W2s and/or paystubs would be enough to prove that you have always been in lawful status. And I put a context around it by saying"assuming i do not have all of my I797s and I94s". What I meant was "in the case I do not have all of my prior I797s and I94s"
No need to worry. Keep all the documents - paystubs - visa stamps etc since your last entry. Thats all uscis asks.
No comments:
Post a Comment