gcseeker2002
12-28 02:49 PM
I had similar problem with United last year. I was flying thruogh Malaysian airlines and United charged me for extra 20 LBs. But it was checked in till India.
Delta is more helpful that way, one of my friends family had separate tickets on Delta and Malaysian, but the delta checkin guy checked in for both flights upto India, and even allowed the 70lbs on the delta part of the flight.
Delta is more helpful that way, one of my friends family had separate tickets on Delta and Malaysian, but the delta checkin guy checked in for both flights upto India, and even allowed the 70lbs on the delta part of the flight.
wallpaper a samsung s3650 corby.its
prioritydate
12-20 07:03 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
delax
07-14 07:14 PM
Murthy sent the letter after LOGICLIFE declared that something GOOD is likely or on the way.... IV is doing the job and she is getting the fruit (money)by just publishing it. When the lawsuit issue came up she took U-turn saying its AILA's job...
When i first came to US , i worked with a guy who used to Publish the results of my hardwork without even mentioning my name and get promotion. When i went to him for my promotion he said this year's promotion quota has exhausted .
Anyway i left that company and those kind thiefs ( who steal credit for other work) long back but the distressing memory of exploitation hasn't left my mind.
To a few of my misguided friends who seem to not understand the distinction between a lobbying outfit whose goal is to change existing law to better suit reality and a law firm whose goal is to work within existing law. As self-proclaimed proponents of "Gandhigiri" - I see its principles not being applied when dealing with each other. Is Gandhigiri meant only to show USCIS. Would the Mahatma have said the same things mentioned above before asking himself a few questions. I dont think we can question the motives and intention of anybody before fully knowing the facts. As a client of Murthy Law Firm here is a fact:
On her call last week for her clients, she mentioned that the Murthy Law Firm is one of the biggest financial contributor to AILF - who by the way are ready to file the class action lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successfull and given AILF's funding source - will you exclude yourself from the potential benefit because Murthy's funds were used to support the litigation - who's piggybacking now.
Again - Its not one against the other - Please bear in mind the DUE PROCESS of LAW has been violated by USCIS resulting in a curtailment of your substantive rights (EAD, Parole, AC21 etc). I would not care who fights on my behalf so long as the outcome is to correct the earlier mistake.
If you feel that she does not work for immigrants you have no locus standi to avail of ANY BENEFIT from the lawsuit and as a true proponent of "Gandhigiri" you should VOLUNTARILY exclude yourself from any such potential benefit. :)
I know the Mahatma would have done the same thing.
When i first came to US , i worked with a guy who used to Publish the results of my hardwork without even mentioning my name and get promotion. When i went to him for my promotion he said this year's promotion quota has exhausted .
Anyway i left that company and those kind thiefs ( who steal credit for other work) long back but the distressing memory of exploitation hasn't left my mind.
To a few of my misguided friends who seem to not understand the distinction between a lobbying outfit whose goal is to change existing law to better suit reality and a law firm whose goal is to work within existing law. As self-proclaimed proponents of "Gandhigiri" - I see its principles not being applied when dealing with each other. Is Gandhigiri meant only to show USCIS. Would the Mahatma have said the same things mentioned above before asking himself a few questions. I dont think we can question the motives and intention of anybody before fully knowing the facts. As a client of Murthy Law Firm here is a fact:
On her call last week for her clients, she mentioned that the Murthy Law Firm is one of the biggest financial contributor to AILF - who by the way are ready to file the class action lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successfull and given AILF's funding source - will you exclude yourself from the potential benefit because Murthy's funds were used to support the litigation - who's piggybacking now.
Again - Its not one against the other - Please bear in mind the DUE PROCESS of LAW has been violated by USCIS resulting in a curtailment of your substantive rights (EAD, Parole, AC21 etc). I would not care who fights on my behalf so long as the outcome is to correct the earlier mistake.
If you feel that she does not work for immigrants you have no locus standi to avail of ANY BENEFIT from the lawsuit and as a true proponent of "Gandhigiri" you should VOLUNTARILY exclude yourself from any such potential benefit. :)
I know the Mahatma would have done the same thing.
2011 56 Free Samsung Star 3G(S5603)
LOL123
08-20 10:29 AM
I know someone who had to go for FP for their son who is 7 yrs old.
So yes, your 6 yrs old will have to get FP done.
As per my knowledge FP is only for the Age 14+
So yes, your 6 yrs old will have to get FP done.
As per my knowledge FP is only for the Age 14+
more...
immig4me
02-04 03:52 PM
/\/\/\
imneedy
04-10 10:28 AM
buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need
lol :d
lol :d
more...
delax
07-19 08:55 PM
We need a realistic estimate of how many applications are pending with PD in 2004, which really seems like the bottleneck. Another thing to bear in mind is the conversion from EB3->EB2. That is also going to hinder the movement of EB2. There are a lot of people trying to use that route.
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
2010 wallpaper for samsung corby gt
sbabunle
12-28 10:07 PM
Anybody tried timesof India?
more...
delhirocks
07-01 10:00 PM
When prominent business houses like Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Oracle and organizations like AILA seem powerless when it comes to influencing senators, lawmakers and government organizations like USCIS and DOS, what can IV team do to change the policies. Sorry I did not mean to criticize, but that's the truth, unfortunately!
What is the alternative?
We all resign to our fate�or try to do whatever little we can
What is the alternative?
We all resign to our fate�or try to do whatever little we can
hair samsung corby wallpapers.
-764417.jpg "Samsung Corby 3 Page")
sroyc
02-14 09:57 PM
The current case is over 50% of H-1B issued to Indian and Chinese every year. And that is why now most people here are waiting.
Do you think RoW H-1B applicants should shout loud and ask for the country limit to be set on H-1B?
That would be one way of preventing the creation of two different classes of skilled immigrant workers in the workforce. Please note that the distinction between these classes is not based on profession or skill level but based on country of birth.
It simply defies common sense that the quota is not enforced anywhere in the immigration pipeline except the I-485 approval. I would be more accepting of this policy if it were applied uniformly - while issuing student and work visas, PERM and I-140 applications along with the I-485 application.
Do you think RoW H-1B applicants should shout loud and ask for the country limit to be set on H-1B?
That would be one way of preventing the creation of two different classes of skilled immigrant workers in the workforce. Please note that the distinction between these classes is not based on profession or skill level but based on country of birth.
It simply defies common sense that the quota is not enforced anywhere in the immigration pipeline except the I-485 approval. I would be more accepting of this policy if it were applied uniformly - while issuing student and work visas, PERM and I-140 applications along with the I-485 application.
more...
.bmp "Samsung Corby Wallpaper")
lvinaykumar
07-07 02:27 AM
Good to see the line is moveing forward insted of backward :D
hot Samsung Corby 3-in-1
sukhwinderd
02-16 07:49 PM
so many people stuck in backlog in DC/VA area and not even 5 came up for help.
i am hopeful of more contributions, please dont let me down.
thanks
i am hopeful of more contributions, please dont let me down.
thanks
more...
house hair Samsung Corby Wallpapers
h1techSlave
06-12 09:55 PM
Any meaningful change in the current immigration policies are very unlikely.
This is what I have read in "The Week".
"Republican donon revolt: The Republican National Committee has suffered a 40 percent falloff in small-donor contributions, largely because of anger over President Bush's immigration reform push, The Washington Times reported last week. The donor backlash prompted the committee to fire all 65 of its telephone solicitors, RNC sources said. The GOP base is up in arms over Bush's plan to create a method for nearly 12 million illegal immigrants to gain legal status - a process critics consider amnesty. An RNS spokesperson said the firings were due to problems with the phone bank equipment and not from any drop-off in donations."
Cheers,
h1techSlave
This is what I have read in "The Week".
"Republican donon revolt: The Republican National Committee has suffered a 40 percent falloff in small-donor contributions, largely because of anger over President Bush's immigration reform push, The Washington Times reported last week. The donor backlash prompted the committee to fire all 65 of its telephone solicitors, RNC sources said. The GOP base is up in arms over Bush's plan to create a method for nearly 12 million illegal immigrants to gain legal status - a process critics consider amnesty. An RNS spokesperson said the firings were due to problems with the phone bank equipment and not from any drop-off in donations."
Cheers,
h1techSlave
tattoo Corby Wallpapers Part 1
ganguteli
02-03 03:04 PM
Start from home first. Get the support of your wife to come with you to DC.
Then talk to your collegues in your company and get them to come with you. Before you strat creating divisions in IV and start a flame war with ROW, try to do those things first. That should tell you how difficult it is to get a 2 line bill.
Then talk to your collegues in your company and get them to come with you. Before you strat creating divisions in IV and start a flame war with ROW, try to do those things first. That should tell you how difficult it is to get a 2 line bill.
more...
pictures Download Awesome Samsung Corby
ncrtpMay2004
09-09 02:13 PM
You know it takes serious $$$ to get anything moving.
Please consider $50/month level.
Please consider $50/month level.
dresses samsung corby wallpapers
Vysh
01-18 11:27 AM
I contributed 20$ this month again. I will contribute 20$ every month. I have not signed up but I will contribute every month. I have so far contributed 140$.
Vysh
Vysh
more...
makeup Samsung Corby Wallpapers
uma001
12-21 04:21 PM
This is from Murthy chat.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Thats for those who are still in US. You have been put of US and reentered , so dont worry...Chill out
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Thats for those who are still in US. You have been put of US and reentered , so dont worry...Chill out
girlfriend Samsung Corby 3 Page
Dakota Newfie
07-03 11:27 AM
I admit, it seems discriminatory to say you can't get your GC now because you're from this country or that country but these "high volume" countries have created the current back log through their sheer numbers and sometimes multiple applications, not the system. The system is fair to ALL and for some group to say that it isn't fair because all of that group isn't getting what they want is unjust to the rest of us. I knew I would be pounced upon when I submitted my original post and it only proves my point of personal agendas; sometimes I wonder what the "I" in "IV" really stands for? Don't be so arrogant as to believe that your higher education should give you more rights than others - that doesn't fly with me! I am frustrated with this forum because of this arrogance and I may not visit too much longer!
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
hairstyles Samsung Corby Wallpaper
ilikekilo
01-18 07:54 PM
traffiic cop....i am not sure about that....you always have the right to remain silent ans ask whether u r free to go...period...
alisa
01-21 02:13 AM
Anyone??
This is all for EB-3.
I think this is the best case scenario.
Pardon my ignorance, but I am assuming that EB-2 eats up from EB-3's numbers, and so EB-2 wait times will be better than what is estimated here for EB-3, at the expense of the EB-3 waiting times ofcourse.
For India:
Depletion_rate = 10500/year
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year
For ROW:
Depletion_rate = 25000/year (Kinda curves-fits to retire all 2001 backlog by 2006, and 2002 backlog by 2008)
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year (Estimated to be the same as that of India)
All numbers rounded off. No
For 2001: Year_current = 2001 + (123194/Depletion_rate)
For 2002: Year_current = 2002 + (160274/Depletion_rate)
For 2003 and later
Year_current = Year_applied + ( (Year_applied-2002)*(Accumulation_rate-Depletion_rate) + 160274) / Depletion_rate
Here are the results. YA is year applied. YC is Year your PD will be current.
No processing delay assumed.
...........India.. ROW
D_rate 10000 25000
A_rate 19500 19500
YA YC YC
2001 2013 2006
2002 2018 2008
2003 2020 2009
2004 2022 2010
2005 2024 2011
2006 2026 2012
2007 2028 2012
2008 2030 2013
2009 2032 2014
2010 2034 2015
I am open to suggestions on how this model can be improved.
If this model, and these estimates are reasonably accurate, lets come out with our own visa bulletin.
This is all for EB-3.
I think this is the best case scenario.
Pardon my ignorance, but I am assuming that EB-2 eats up from EB-3's numbers, and so EB-2 wait times will be better than what is estimated here for EB-3, at the expense of the EB-3 waiting times ofcourse.
For India:
Depletion_rate = 10500/year
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year
For ROW:
Depletion_rate = 25000/year (Kinda curves-fits to retire all 2001 backlog by 2006, and 2002 backlog by 2008)
Accumulation_rate = 19500/year (Estimated to be the same as that of India)
All numbers rounded off. No
For 2001: Year_current = 2001 + (123194/Depletion_rate)
For 2002: Year_current = 2002 + (160274/Depletion_rate)
For 2003 and later
Year_current = Year_applied + ( (Year_applied-2002)*(Accumulation_rate-Depletion_rate) + 160274) / Depletion_rate
Here are the results. YA is year applied. YC is Year your PD will be current.
No processing delay assumed.
...........India.. ROW
D_rate 10000 25000
A_rate 19500 19500
YA YC YC
2001 2013 2006
2002 2018 2008
2003 2020 2009
2004 2022 2010
2005 2024 2011
2006 2026 2012
2007 2028 2012
2008 2030 2013
2009 2032 2014
2010 2034 2015
I am open to suggestions on how this model can be improved.
If this model, and these estimates are reasonably accurate, lets come out with our own visa bulletin.
guyfromsg
07-16 09:52 PM
We all know that people on H1 status pay federal,state and social security tax. So I checked IRS site and searched for H1B. They have couple of links that shows H1b should pay tax. My point is everyone knows IRS and they know how much they go after people who are not paying taxes. If we can point to IRS which itself states by way examples that H1B should pay tax then at least the fence sitters will not jump on their side. I doubt if hardcore NumberUSA supporter will believe this anyway but we need turn the fence sitters around which may be the majority.
Here is the first one:
I have an H-1B Visa and my husband has an F-1 Visa. We both lived in the United States all of last year and had income. What kind of form should we file? Do we file separate returns or a joint return?
Assuming both of you had these visas for all of last year, you are a resident alien. Your husband is a nonresident alien if he has not been in the United States as a student for more than 5 years. You and your husband can file a joint tax return on Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ if he makes the choice to be treated as a resident for the entire year. See Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident in chapter 1. If your husband does not make this choice, you must file a separate return on Form 1040 or Form 1040A. Your husband must file Form 1040NR or 1040NR-EZ.
Here is an example where they use person on H1b as an example. I'm giving the link as the explanation is long. Just look at example 10
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129428,00.html
Example 8.
Mr. Gerhard Schwarz was a citizen and resident of Germany just prior to his arrival in the United States. He arrived in the United States on 08-15-99 as a professor of physics on an H-1b visa. He intends to remain in the United States for two academic years, and does not intend to change his immigration status during that period before returning home. Determine his residency starting date.
What kind of federal income tax returns will he file for 1999 and 2000?
Here is the first one:
I have an H-1B Visa and my husband has an F-1 Visa. We both lived in the United States all of last year and had income. What kind of form should we file? Do we file separate returns or a joint return?
Assuming both of you had these visas for all of last year, you are a resident alien. Your husband is a nonresident alien if he has not been in the United States as a student for more than 5 years. You and your husband can file a joint tax return on Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ if he makes the choice to be treated as a resident for the entire year. See Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident in chapter 1. If your husband does not make this choice, you must file a separate return on Form 1040 or Form 1040A. Your husband must file Form 1040NR or 1040NR-EZ.
Here is an example where they use person on H1b as an example. I'm giving the link as the explanation is long. Just look at example 10
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129428,00.html
Example 8.
Mr. Gerhard Schwarz was a citizen and resident of Germany just prior to his arrival in the United States. He arrived in the United States on 08-15-99 as a professor of physics on an H-1b visa. He intends to remain in the United States for two academic years, and does not intend to change his immigration status during that period before returning home. Determine his residency starting date.
What kind of federal income tax returns will he file for 1999 and 2000?
Post a Comment