JazzByTheBay
10-27 12:52 AM
It's a well-know fact that Senator Kennedy only empathizes with "undocumented workers", and feels they deserve to be given "a path to citizenship" (amnesty by any other name is still amnesty... ) - understandably so given the demographics and numbers.
jazz
I got this as a real paper letter. The signature is a picture, of course, not real.
No surprise here. We are not even a part of immigration reform for him.:mad:
So in this standard reply "about immigration reform" we are not even mentioned.
EDWARD M. KENNEDY
MASSACHUSETTS
Uinited States
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2101
October 9, 2007
Dear Mr. :
Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. This is a complex issue, with many important aspects, and it requires a comprehensive solution. 12 million undocumented workers are now living in the United States. They're working, paying taxes, and raising children who are U.S. citizens if they are born here. They contribute to our economy, and it is time to bring them out of the shadows and end their unfair exploitation by unscrupulous employers in communities across the country.
Funds for border enforcement have increased dramatically over the years. The budget for the Border Patrol has increased from $263 million in 1990 to $1.6 billion today - a six-fold increase. Yet each year during this period, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have continued to enter the U.S. illegally. Our immigration laws are clearly broken, and stronger border enforcement alone will not fix them.
Long and thorough negotiations with the White House and fellow Senators, Republican and Democrat, led to the drafting of a comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform bill this year. It contained important provisions to strengthen border security, but it also contained needed provisions imposing higher penalties on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants, a temporary worker program to help American businesses meet their employment needs, and provisions to address the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States by allowing them to obtain legal status after undergoing background checks, paying a fine, and going to the back of the line for green cards. The bill was a realistic and comprehensive solution that would not only protect our borders, but also enable needed temporary workers to enter the country legally, and allow workers already here to become legal.
Unfortunately, this needed legislation has now stalled in the Senate, which is enormously disappointing for Congress and the country. But the battle is far from over. I'm in it for the long haul, and Fm certain that, in the end, we will prevail. Ignoring the problem will not solve it. We cannot afford to do nothing, especially in this post-9/11 era. By heritage and history, America is a nation of immigrants, and we must preserve this tradition. I will continue to fight to reform our immigration laws, so that our borders are secure and immigrant families can continue to live the American dream.
Again, thank you for writing to me about this important issue.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
jazz
I got this as a real paper letter. The signature is a picture, of course, not real.
No surprise here. We are not even a part of immigration reform for him.:mad:
So in this standard reply "about immigration reform" we are not even mentioned.
EDWARD M. KENNEDY
MASSACHUSETTS
Uinited States
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2101
October 9, 2007
Dear Mr. :
Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. This is a complex issue, with many important aspects, and it requires a comprehensive solution. 12 million undocumented workers are now living in the United States. They're working, paying taxes, and raising children who are U.S. citizens if they are born here. They contribute to our economy, and it is time to bring them out of the shadows and end their unfair exploitation by unscrupulous employers in communities across the country.
Funds for border enforcement have increased dramatically over the years. The budget for the Border Patrol has increased from $263 million in 1990 to $1.6 billion today - a six-fold increase. Yet each year during this period, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have continued to enter the U.S. illegally. Our immigration laws are clearly broken, and stronger border enforcement alone will not fix them.
Long and thorough negotiations with the White House and fellow Senators, Republican and Democrat, led to the drafting of a comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform bill this year. It contained important provisions to strengthen border security, but it also contained needed provisions imposing higher penalties on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants, a temporary worker program to help American businesses meet their employment needs, and provisions to address the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States by allowing them to obtain legal status after undergoing background checks, paying a fine, and going to the back of the line for green cards. The bill was a realistic and comprehensive solution that would not only protect our borders, but also enable needed temporary workers to enter the country legally, and allow workers already here to become legal.
Unfortunately, this needed legislation has now stalled in the Senate, which is enormously disappointing for Congress and the country. But the battle is far from over. I'm in it for the long haul, and Fm certain that, in the end, we will prevail. Ignoring the problem will not solve it. We cannot afford to do nothing, especially in this post-9/11 era. By heritage and history, America is a nation of immigrants, and we must preserve this tradition. I will continue to fight to reform our immigration laws, so that our borders are secure and immigrant families can continue to live the American dream.
Again, thank you for writing to me about this important issue.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
wallpaper AT BURDWAN IN EASTERN INDIA 27 AUGUST 2009 -------WN/ SANJOY KARMAKAR
desi3933
09-05 05:53 PM
Thanks, nice reply.
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
The minimum California franchise tax is the amount a California corp must pay the first quarter of each tax year whether it is active, operates at a loss or does not do business. The current minimum tax is $800.
The $800 tax payment is not due during the corporation's FIRST tax year. The first $800 minimum tax is due on the 15th day of the 4th month of the corporation's SECOND tax year.
Please note that LLCs are liable for the minimum franchise tax in all years (no two year exemption for LLCs).
Please check details with California Franchise Tax Board. The web site is http://www.ftb.ca.gov
*** Disclaimer - This is general info and use it at your own risk *****
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
The minimum California franchise tax is the amount a California corp must pay the first quarter of each tax year whether it is active, operates at a loss or does not do business. The current minimum tax is $800.
The $800 tax payment is not due during the corporation's FIRST tax year. The first $800 minimum tax is due on the 15th day of the 4th month of the corporation's SECOND tax year.
Please note that LLCs are liable for the minimum franchise tax in all years (no two year exemption for LLCs).
Please check details with California Franchise Tax Board. The web site is http://www.ftb.ca.gov
*** Disclaimer - This is general info and use it at your own risk *****
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
go_gc_way
05-13 10:25 AM
That's really an idea , need a thought by all... pros and cons.
Specially a forum like IV, and then I believe it will be another effort to get it there.
Given retrogression has some what a known issue, does any one think ... this will be mentioned any way in the address.
Specially a forum like IV, and then I believe it will be another effort to get it there.
Given retrogression has some what a known issue, does any one think ... this will be mentioned any way in the address.
2011 India, 27 October 2009.
HV000
08-10 12:44 AM
It is too early to tell if it definitely refers to us, but it is more likely that this IS referring to EB and naturalization background checks. Reasoning is like this - Background checks are required by Department of State (DOS) for issuing Visas. Department of homeland security (DHS) under which USCIS comes is responsible for those within the US. Now background checks are not conducted for issuing H1B visa etc. They are only for EB/N-400. So it is more likely they are referring us. Secondly, just two months back USCIS announced that it is going through Ombudsman's report and would be preparing a response. Last month FBI's miller came out and suggested they are happy with main file checks (which take less than 2 days to come back automatically) and USCIS is insisting of doing reference file checks and they would be keen to work with USCIS to find ways of reducing backlog processing times. Some options included they way background checks are done, and also borrowing workers from USCIS for FBI's NNC unit. Finally, when the fee increase was announced USCIS mentioned some of the money would go to reduce processing times and FBI asked for increasing the name check fee from $2 to $9 which means now that the fees increase has been implemented more resources to reduce time may be implemented.
With scores of cases against USCIS and thousands of letters to congressmen and president and articles in NYT and WS Times, finally they may have realized that it is time they attended to the background check delays issue.
Very good points. We should know more about this tomorrow. Hopefully they are referring to FB/EB IMMIGRATION.
With scores of cases against USCIS and thousands of letters to congressmen and president and articles in NYT and WS Times, finally they may have realized that it is time they attended to the background check delays issue.
Very good points. We should know more about this tomorrow. Hopefully they are referring to FB/EB IMMIGRATION.
more...
BMS1
07-19 10:22 AM
My understanding is that to file for I-485 one needs to be in valid non-immigrant status (which your spouse does not have as of july 17th). After a valid I485 filing, there is a relief of 180 days as per 245(K). I could be wrong. It was a serious mistake not to have filed before July 16th. But nevertheless worth a try. If USCIS does not reject the filing, you need to be careful, not to let your spouse stay inside US beyond 180 days counting from July 16th. Since at a later stage, should the application be denied,a lot more can go wrong.
baburob2
02-16 01:17 PM
Hi Logiclife
The 2004-2005 more usuage of EB visas for Indians is done because those were approved through AC21's unused visas i believe between 1999-2000 which are quota independent and not just from the annual quota of 140K. Hence in 2004-2005 there were more usuage. Starting from 2006 only thing left is the annual quota of 140K with per country quota of 7% at the max which has to be split among several EB categories in some proportions (roughly 1/3 among EB1, EB2, Eb3).The spillovers within 7% alone can be redistributed within a country's EB quota in the final quarter of the year. Hence the max India can get is 7% no matter how much gets spilled over from the rest of the world. THe only way to get the spillover back into the picture is another law enactment everytime it happens to get it back which is slow and painful process. Hence in nutshell to remove retrogression the easiest way is to remove country cap is or increase it . Else it is always going to stay even if annual quota is increased or through anyother measures. Hence I would recommend positively IV to focus on doing it and not mere increasing the quota.
The 2004-2005 more usuage of EB visas for Indians is done because those were approved through AC21's unused visas i believe between 1999-2000 which are quota independent and not just from the annual quota of 140K. Hence in 2004-2005 there were more usuage. Starting from 2006 only thing left is the annual quota of 140K with per country quota of 7% at the max which has to be split among several EB categories in some proportions (roughly 1/3 among EB1, EB2, Eb3).The spillovers within 7% alone can be redistributed within a country's EB quota in the final quarter of the year. Hence the max India can get is 7% no matter how much gets spilled over from the rest of the world. THe only way to get the spillover back into the picture is another law enactment everytime it happens to get it back which is slow and painful process. Hence in nutshell to remove retrogression the easiest way is to remove country cap is or increase it . Else it is always going to stay even if annual quota is increased or through anyother measures. Hence I would recommend positively IV to focus on doing it and not mere increasing the quota.
more...
abhijitp
01-25 02:42 PM
I am happy to inform all of you in NORCAL that the permit to conduct a signature/letter campaign at Fremont BART is with us!!!
NOTE: This cannot be used by another member at another station-- this is a non-transferrable permit SOLELY for the campaign at Fremont at the said times, but you can request a similar permit for any BART station!
Now, I need at least ONE other member to be there on a weekday evening of your choice (I am planning to go there EVERY weekday evening for 2 weeks) and help me conduct this campaign!
PLEASE.... this is the last call.. don't let us down!
NOTE: This cannot be used by another member at another station-- this is a non-transferrable permit SOLELY for the campaign at Fremont at the said times, but you can request a similar permit for any BART station!
Now, I need at least ONE other member to be there on a weekday evening of your choice (I am planning to go there EVERY weekday evening for 2 weeks) and help me conduct this campaign!
PLEASE.... this is the last call.. don't let us down!
2010 India, 27 October 2009.
john2255
07-21 08:31 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
more...
Ramba
01-23 06:51 PM
Sorry for little confusion.
What I mean was,
- I filed I-485 for me and my wife
- then after 180 days I switched to a new company with H1B transfer.
- So, I am still in H1B status.
- But my wife (secondary applicant) is using EAD based on I-485 and working.
Which means we used AC21 for portability of our I-140 and I-485 cases.
Now, we are planning to travel home to India. My wife need to use AP and I will still be using H1B visa.
So, my question was, whether there will be issue at Port of Entry when primary applicant(which is me) is still in H1B visa with pending I-485 and my wife is using EAD with AP?
Normally if both have independent valid travel document, you are fine. It does not make any difference if primary use H1B and spouse use AP, but it may confuse the IO at POE, if they ask lot of questions, (who is your employer, Are you working for GC sponsering employer etc..)
IO at POE may not know all the rules regarding AC21/485/AP/H1 etc.. If you are entering in H1, the natural tendency that your spose will enter in H4. If you answer properly, you are fine..
What I mean was,
- I filed I-485 for me and my wife
- then after 180 days I switched to a new company with H1B transfer.
- So, I am still in H1B status.
- But my wife (secondary applicant) is using EAD based on I-485 and working.
Which means we used AC21 for portability of our I-140 and I-485 cases.
Now, we are planning to travel home to India. My wife need to use AP and I will still be using H1B visa.
So, my question was, whether there will be issue at Port of Entry when primary applicant(which is me) is still in H1B visa with pending I-485 and my wife is using EAD with AP?
Normally if both have independent valid travel document, you are fine. It does not make any difference if primary use H1B and spouse use AP, but it may confuse the IO at POE, if they ask lot of questions, (who is your employer, Are you working for GC sponsering employer etc..)
IO at POE may not know all the rules regarding AC21/485/AP/H1 etc.. If you are entering in H1, the natural tendency that your spose will enter in H4. If you answer properly, you are fine..
hair IN EASTERN INDIA 27 AUGUST
chanduv23
07-11 02:42 PM
My EAD and AP application was received June 19, 2009 at TSC. To my pleasant shocking & surprise USCIS approved mine and wife's application in 20 days and we received the card today.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
My EAD and AP were receipted on June 9th from TSC. AP got approved, EAD still pending. So I guess these approvals are random.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
My EAD and AP were receipted on June 9th from TSC. AP got approved, EAD still pending. So I guess these approvals are random.
more...
rnvd
10-30 03:48 PM
Hi all,
Here is my story. In December 2004 i went to India and i came back on the same month. At the PortOfEntry(POE), the Officer given I-94 based on the my the Visa of my previous company which is valid upto Jan 1, 2006.
But i had already have approved H1B which is valid upto Jan 21, 2007. At that time, i didn't know it is a problem based on LastActionRule. When the time to file for my H1B extension(basically 7th Year) in the month of November 2006, my attorney find that i am technically out of status because of my I-94 is overriden by PortOfEntry eventhough i had H1B Approval with I-94. My Attorney explained about mistake by POE to USCIS when we filed my H1B extension and the USCIS approved my extension for 1 year from Jan22, 2007 to Mar30, 2008 because my Labor is pending. Recently this march my H1B extended to 3 more years based on I-140 approval.
My question is if i will to India for vacation this November is there any problem in the port of entry. I haven't travelled since Dec,2004. I am going to use AdvanceParole(AP) on this vacation. Eventhough my attorney says there is no problem to go to India because we got two H1B approvals after the I-94 problem, but i am not 100% confident because at the POE they may create a problem. Can anybody please tell if u had same or similar problem and successfully travelled in and out of USA.
Here is my story. In December 2004 i went to India and i came back on the same month. At the PortOfEntry(POE), the Officer given I-94 based on the my the Visa of my previous company which is valid upto Jan 1, 2006.
But i had already have approved H1B which is valid upto Jan 21, 2007. At that time, i didn't know it is a problem based on LastActionRule. When the time to file for my H1B extension(basically 7th Year) in the month of November 2006, my attorney find that i am technically out of status because of my I-94 is overriden by PortOfEntry eventhough i had H1B Approval with I-94. My Attorney explained about mistake by POE to USCIS when we filed my H1B extension and the USCIS approved my extension for 1 year from Jan22, 2007 to Mar30, 2008 because my Labor is pending. Recently this march my H1B extended to 3 more years based on I-140 approval.
My question is if i will to India for vacation this November is there any problem in the port of entry. I haven't travelled since Dec,2004. I am going to use AdvanceParole(AP) on this vacation. Eventhough my attorney says there is no problem to go to India because we got two H1B approvals after the I-94 problem, but i am not 100% confident because at the POE they may create a problem. Can anybody please tell if u had same or similar problem and successfully travelled in and out of USA.
hot Times of India, 27 April 2010
xbohdpukc
04-02 10:06 AM
You guys probably verified this already but -
if you read (the intended) Sec 218D (amendment to the INA) and Sec 602 of S.2454, they do not exclude legal aliens.
All that is required under 218D is that a person must have been in the US on or before Jan 7, 2004 and have proof of employment.
Why shouldn't a legal nonimmigrant visa holder apply for AOS under 218D?
What am I missing here?
you are missing the whole point: you should've been undocumented on or before Jan 7th 2004
if you read (the intended) Sec 218D (amendment to the INA) and Sec 602 of S.2454, they do not exclude legal aliens.
All that is required under 218D is that a person must have been in the US on or before Jan 7, 2004 and have proof of employment.
Why shouldn't a legal nonimmigrant visa holder apply for AOS under 218D?
What am I missing here?
you are missing the whole point: you should've been undocumented on or before Jan 7th 2004
more...
house India (27°06#39; N, 77°40#39; E)
prashantkh
08-23 02:30 PM
in EB3, EB2 and EB1
Not Enough :rolleyes:
Not Enough :rolleyes:
tattoo of India, 27 October 2008
ak_2006
11-09 12:15 PM
I completed the form.
more...
pictures Mamallapuram, South, India27
martinvisalaw
08-18 12:46 PM
The RFE as per my employer is about Vendor/Client Details and a latest paystub from the current job. Since I started working already and was getting paid, my employer generated a paystub and supplied the same.
I would be surprised if CIS wanted a paystub from the current employer. They are more likely to have asked for one from the previous employer to prove that you were maintaining status.
I would normally not advise someone who was already out of work to use H-1B portability to start working for a new employer. I always recommend waiting until the new H-1B is approved. Given the gap between ending the old job and filing this H-1B, there is a strong chance that CIS will not approve the change of employer petition. This means that you have been working without authorization.
See this blog posting for more details: Law Office of Elaine Martin - immigration news: Consequences of layoffs on H-1B workers - Part 1 (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/02/consequences-of-layoffs-on-h-1b-workers.html).
I would be surprised if CIS wanted a paystub from the current employer. They are more likely to have asked for one from the previous employer to prove that you were maintaining status.
I would normally not advise someone who was already out of work to use H-1B portability to start working for a new employer. I always recommend waiting until the new H-1B is approved. Given the gap between ending the old job and filing this H-1B, there is a strong chance that CIS will not approve the change of employer petition. This means that you have been working without authorization.
See this blog posting for more details: Law Office of Elaine Martin - immigration news: Consequences of layoffs on H-1B workers - Part 1 (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/02/consequences-of-layoffs-on-h-1b-workers.html).
dresses North-West, India27
venky80
06-15 11:33 PM
Well they advise me to go for EB3 wouldn't EB3 have the same issue?
because my bachelors is also in mechanical engineering
because my bachelors is also in mechanical engineering
more...
makeup India. 27/02/2011
anilsal
11-18 04:30 PM
USCIS has its own guideline of issuing EAD within 90 days. Since there was heavy work load after July, they issued without FP. For the EADs issued without FP, they are re-issuing EAD with FP.:)
Why would USCIS do duplicate work?
Why would USCIS do duplicate work?
girlfriend Palace, Orchha, India27
FKFish
01-31 12:18 PM
Great. Thank you all very much. :)
hairstyles pictures from india27 Pictures
dixie
02-15 10:11 AM
Definitely an idea worth considering. Of late we hvae had too many "new members" who turn out to be 2-3 post wonders - get their questions answered and vanish without a trace. But given the subsidy mentality prelavent among our "educated and skilled" community, I doubt the idea will fly.
pmamp
06-13 09:21 AM
I work for US university on H1B. Based on my knowledge the following are valid points.
- There is no deadline or quota for H1B visa's for these non-profit orgs.
- You can transfer from F1, OPT to H1B (I did the same).
- If you are being paid by a for-profit org then you ARE SUBJECT TO QUOTA.
So, to answer your question (original poster), you will be subject to quota if you are working for a consulting firm (it does not matter if your assignment is at a non-profit org or not).
So, if you want to get a H1B visa try to get in directly with non-profit organization.
For many US university jobs you can visit:
http://www.higheredjobs.com
Good luck!
- There is no deadline or quota for H1B visa's for these non-profit orgs.
- You can transfer from F1, OPT to H1B (I did the same).
- If you are being paid by a for-profit org then you ARE SUBJECT TO QUOTA.
So, to answer your question (original poster), you will be subject to quota if you are working for a consulting firm (it does not matter if your assignment is at a non-profit org or not).
So, if you want to get a H1B visa try to get in directly with non-profit organization.
For many US university jobs you can visit:
http://www.higheredjobs.com
Good luck!
phillyag
07-20 02:14 PM
Any expected timelines for getting the receipt notice from USCIS? I filed on Jul17th.
No comments:
Post a Comment