Jimi_Hendrix
11-20 09:49 PM
Got legal immigration?
Joe Adams holds on to his coffee cup while he anxiously reads the immigration news headlines on Google. The democrats have just won control in Washington and like all immigrants; Joe is hopeful that some immigration reform will emerge.
Joe, a native of United Kingdom first came to the United States in 1998. After graduating from Harvard Business School with an MBA he got his dream job in supply chain management. It was not long after that Joe’s company filed for his permanent residency. Life moved on and soon Joe and his wife Kathy had their first child. “The year was 2003” reminisces Joe, “I was really beginning to understand the U.S. immigration process. I was getting a handle on the numerous loops that lay ahead. It was soon apparent to me that immigration was no walk in the garden”.
Of the 940,000 legal immigrants in 2004, only 16% were skilled employment-based immigrants. About 40% of these skilled immigrants had advanced degrees, or 5 or more years of experience after a baccalaureate degree. The impact of these workers’ contributions to American competitiveness belies their small number. They add to the process of scientific discovery, technology development, and innovation, which in turn leads to greater productivity growth. Current immigration policy is abetting brain drain and forcing many of these immigrants to leave for countries like Canada and United Kingdom where skilled immigrants are given priority over undocumented and family-based immigrants.
Legal Immigration, Rewarding?
“Most importantly legal immigration has to be rewarding for legal residents and create a shining example for all other immigrants”, remarks Joe Adams. In the United States, all immigration reform for highly skilled immigrants is bundled with reform for undocumented workers. This phenomenon is representative of the apathy of U.S. immigration policy towards highly skilled legal immigrants. Many of them have advanced degrees in science and technology. They have trained and honed their skills while working in U.S. companies.
Currently permanent residency applications for skilled, employment based immigrants are backed 5-8 years. In the interim applicants are unable to change jobs, get promotions or make any major financial decisions. Highly skilled, legal immigrants need immigration reforms that will reduce massive process backlogs, improve processing by government agencies and better the quality of life while the application is pending.
Legal Immigration Myths
Extremist, anti-immigration advocacy groups have aggressively publicized myths about legal, skilled immigrants. Let us expound some of the common myths about employment based immigration.
Myth: Increasing green cards will enable more new immigrants to enter the country
Fact: Most immigrants who are caught in the employment-based immigration backlog have already spent 5-10 years in the United States. They have integrated socially and culturally. Companies have spent thousands of dollars on training these workers.
Myth: Employment based immigrants do not pay taxes and are a social burden
Fact: Employment based immigrants are required by law to file for federal and state tax returns each year. They pay social security taxes, medicare taxes, payroll taxes and all other applicable taxes. Employment based immigrants are not eligible to receive social security benefits unless their permanent residency applications are approved or unless they have worked in the U.S. for several years.
Myth: Employment based immigrants take away local jobs
Fact: Most progressive Americans realize that educated immigrant workers play a crucial role in stimulating the local economy. Highly skilled immigration fills the gaps in availability and makes the U.S. economy competitive and resilient. A recent study concludes that immigrants have fueled the US entrepreneurial economy, starting one in four venture-backed companies since 1990 and two in five in high technology. This is according to a study released by the National Venture Capital Association trade group to the U.S. Congress in November 2006.
Myth: H1B quota increase will result in more green cards
Fact: H1B has a separate quota from green card quotas. Even after an individual has approved security check, labor certification and employment eligibility; a visa number must be available for him to receive a green card. This quota is subject to annual numerical limits. Based on the current annual visa limit, applications are backlogged 6 years.
Future of Legal Immigration
It is presumed that legal immigration process works efficiently and in a clockwork fashion. However when you consider that legal applicants have to wait 5-8 years for a green card; this statement is false. In the current political environment pro and anti immigrant extremism exist side by side. A rational, middle of the road approach is largely missing. Such an approach would prioritize immigration based on the contribution of immigrants towards economic growth, the reduction of job outsourcing and most importantly rewarding those who chose to enter and continue to reside legally in USA.
Americans largely supports legal immigration. This year, the Secure Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership Bill was introduced in Senate and in the House of Representatives. This bill provides the much needed immigration reforms for highly skilled immigrants. However the democrat leadership has not yet declared immigration on their agenda for the first 100 hours of work. Unless congress collectively passes immigration relief for skilled workers, political considerations for the 2008 presidential elections will put this issue on the back burner again.
Joe Adams holds on to his coffee cup while he anxiously reads the immigration news headlines on Google. The democrats have just won control in Washington and like all immigrants; Joe is hopeful that some immigration reform will emerge.
Joe, a native of United Kingdom first came to the United States in 1998. After graduating from Harvard Business School with an MBA he got his dream job in supply chain management. It was not long after that Joe’s company filed for his permanent residency. Life moved on and soon Joe and his wife Kathy had their first child. “The year was 2003” reminisces Joe, “I was really beginning to understand the U.S. immigration process. I was getting a handle on the numerous loops that lay ahead. It was soon apparent to me that immigration was no walk in the garden”.
Of the 940,000 legal immigrants in 2004, only 16% were skilled employment-based immigrants. About 40% of these skilled immigrants had advanced degrees, or 5 or more years of experience after a baccalaureate degree. The impact of these workers’ contributions to American competitiveness belies their small number. They add to the process of scientific discovery, technology development, and innovation, which in turn leads to greater productivity growth. Current immigration policy is abetting brain drain and forcing many of these immigrants to leave for countries like Canada and United Kingdom where skilled immigrants are given priority over undocumented and family-based immigrants.
Legal Immigration, Rewarding?
“Most importantly legal immigration has to be rewarding for legal residents and create a shining example for all other immigrants”, remarks Joe Adams. In the United States, all immigration reform for highly skilled immigrants is bundled with reform for undocumented workers. This phenomenon is representative of the apathy of U.S. immigration policy towards highly skilled legal immigrants. Many of them have advanced degrees in science and technology. They have trained and honed their skills while working in U.S. companies.
Currently permanent residency applications for skilled, employment based immigrants are backed 5-8 years. In the interim applicants are unable to change jobs, get promotions or make any major financial decisions. Highly skilled, legal immigrants need immigration reforms that will reduce massive process backlogs, improve processing by government agencies and better the quality of life while the application is pending.
Legal Immigration Myths
Extremist, anti-immigration advocacy groups have aggressively publicized myths about legal, skilled immigrants. Let us expound some of the common myths about employment based immigration.
Myth: Increasing green cards will enable more new immigrants to enter the country
Fact: Most immigrants who are caught in the employment-based immigration backlog have already spent 5-10 years in the United States. They have integrated socially and culturally. Companies have spent thousands of dollars on training these workers.
Myth: Employment based immigrants do not pay taxes and are a social burden
Fact: Employment based immigrants are required by law to file for federal and state tax returns each year. They pay social security taxes, medicare taxes, payroll taxes and all other applicable taxes. Employment based immigrants are not eligible to receive social security benefits unless their permanent residency applications are approved or unless they have worked in the U.S. for several years.
Myth: Employment based immigrants take away local jobs
Fact: Most progressive Americans realize that educated immigrant workers play a crucial role in stimulating the local economy. Highly skilled immigration fills the gaps in availability and makes the U.S. economy competitive and resilient. A recent study concludes that immigrants have fueled the US entrepreneurial economy, starting one in four venture-backed companies since 1990 and two in five in high technology. This is according to a study released by the National Venture Capital Association trade group to the U.S. Congress in November 2006.
Myth: H1B quota increase will result in more green cards
Fact: H1B has a separate quota from green card quotas. Even after an individual has approved security check, labor certification and employment eligibility; a visa number must be available for him to receive a green card. This quota is subject to annual numerical limits. Based on the current annual visa limit, applications are backlogged 6 years.
Future of Legal Immigration
It is presumed that legal immigration process works efficiently and in a clockwork fashion. However when you consider that legal applicants have to wait 5-8 years for a green card; this statement is false. In the current political environment pro and anti immigrant extremism exist side by side. A rational, middle of the road approach is largely missing. Such an approach would prioritize immigration based on the contribution of immigrants towards economic growth, the reduction of job outsourcing and most importantly rewarding those who chose to enter and continue to reside legally in USA.
Americans largely supports legal immigration. This year, the Secure Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership Bill was introduced in Senate and in the House of Representatives. This bill provides the much needed immigration reforms for highly skilled immigrants. However the democrat leadership has not yet declared immigration on their agenda for the first 100 hours of work. Unless congress collectively passes immigration relief for skilled workers, political considerations for the 2008 presidential elections will put this issue on the back burner again.
wallpaper 2011 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 GTS
lahiribaba
02-11 02:41 AM
Hi,
I been a member of IV for a long time and just to keep myself anonymous for a while I created this account. I am so sorry for opening a thread in a completely irrelevant forum but I have no idea what to do. So, I request all the members to please help me by providing some kind of information.
Here is my story:
I came to US in 2002 and completed masters and been working since then. I got married couple of years ago. Whatever the monetary gifts the girls parents gave as part of the marriage, I put all that in an account on the girls name within 2 days of the marriage. We came to India and from then on the problems started. She and her parents want me to separate from my parents and support their family by sending money to their parents which I couldn't do. How can I leave my parents in their old age when they worked very hard to give a decent life. She has been harassing me mentally for this all the time. Recently her parents have been threatening me saying they will file dowry case in India if I don't send money or cut myself off from my parents. I provided for the girl in all possible ways, even encouraged her to join school to get a masters degree which she stopped soon. We had a baby recently and my parents visited us to help us with the baby. She started harassing them too by saying something or other.
I am very frustrated at this situation and I don't know what to do. I am on H1B and applied for 485 too. At times I feel like applying for divorce but when I think about my little baby I am not able to take that step. The house we currently live in, I bought long before the marriage. It came to a situation where we cannot live together. I cannot ask her to go out of the house because she doesn't have anywhere to go and with the baby even if she leaves, it will be very tough. I said I will leave the house and stay in a apartment for which she threatens to commit suicide. So, I don't know what to do. I am worried about my baby because between all this my baby's life will be spoiled and I don't want that. Can anyone please tell me what I can do in this matter?
Thank you very much for taking time to read this.
You come from a society that practices dowry and expect monetary traansactions in arranged marraiges ...you reap what you sow.
I been a member of IV for a long time and just to keep myself anonymous for a while I created this account. I am so sorry for opening a thread in a completely irrelevant forum but I have no idea what to do. So, I request all the members to please help me by providing some kind of information.
Here is my story:
I came to US in 2002 and completed masters and been working since then. I got married couple of years ago. Whatever the monetary gifts the girls parents gave as part of the marriage, I put all that in an account on the girls name within 2 days of the marriage. We came to India and from then on the problems started. She and her parents want me to separate from my parents and support their family by sending money to their parents which I couldn't do. How can I leave my parents in their old age when they worked very hard to give a decent life. She has been harassing me mentally for this all the time. Recently her parents have been threatening me saying they will file dowry case in India if I don't send money or cut myself off from my parents. I provided for the girl in all possible ways, even encouraged her to join school to get a masters degree which she stopped soon. We had a baby recently and my parents visited us to help us with the baby. She started harassing them too by saying something or other.
I am very frustrated at this situation and I don't know what to do. I am on H1B and applied for 485 too. At times I feel like applying for divorce but when I think about my little baby I am not able to take that step. The house we currently live in, I bought long before the marriage. It came to a situation where we cannot live together. I cannot ask her to go out of the house because she doesn't have anywhere to go and with the baby even if she leaves, it will be very tough. I said I will leave the house and stay in a apartment for which she threatens to commit suicide. So, I don't know what to do. I am worried about my baby because between all this my baby's life will be spoiled and I don't want that. Can anyone please tell me what I can do in this matter?
Thank you very much for taking time to read this.
You come from a society that practices dowry and expect monetary traansactions in arranged marraiges ...you reap what you sow.
ImmiLosers
12-23 06:38 PM
I have recently contacted CIS Ombudsman (3-4 Months ago) regarding my I-485 application.
My lawyer is perpetually suggesting it may jeopardize the case.
Is it true? and Why?
My lawyer is perpetually suggesting it may jeopardize the case.
Is it true? and Why?
2011 Added: 14 January 2011. Car
rsayed
09-10 10:38 AM
I don't what how you define "most" but I am EB2 with US masters with PD 2006 and I am still waiting. Many of my friends with US masters are still waiting.
Same here - Masters from US, with PD 2006....Stilllllllllllllllll waiting!!!!!
I was reading an article handed over by my Lawyer sometime back - the whole GC process was designed to be completed in 6 mos. end-to-end.
This goes to show how outdated the process is, plus the resource crunch they may be facing at USCIS.
All in all - it's a black hole...only your 'karma' can get you out of it:)
Same here - Masters from US, with PD 2006....Stilllllllllllllllll waiting!!!!!
I was reading an article handed over by my Lawyer sometime back - the whole GC process was designed to be completed in 6 mos. end-to-end.
This goes to show how outdated the process is, plus the resource crunch they may be facing at USCIS.
All in all - it's a black hole...only your 'karma' can get you out of it:)
more...
jung.lee
04-04 12:55 AM
:confused::confused:We cannot start a S-corp on EAD. Need to be GC holder or US Citizen.
...
Should a Corporation's owners later wish to be taxed as an S-Corporation, they would file a "Subchapter S" federal tax election (Form 2553) within 75 days of incorporating or within 75 days of the beginning of the calendar year. To do this, the Corporation would need to have less than 100 owners, all of whom must be either U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens ("green card" holders). Once the "S" tax election is made, the return to be filed is the 1120 "S", rather than the 1120. Whether or not you decide to be taxed as an S-Corporation, your company is still a "General Corporation" in the eyes of the state of incorporation.
...
[
But we can setup Solo or Partership or C-Corp. Don't run into legal issues by setting up S-Corp on EAD, before getting GC.
Good luck.
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
...
Should a Corporation's owners later wish to be taxed as an S-Corporation, they would file a "Subchapter S" federal tax election (Form 2553) within 75 days of incorporating or within 75 days of the beginning of the calendar year. To do this, the Corporation would need to have less than 100 owners, all of whom must be either U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens ("green card" holders). Once the "S" tax election is made, the return to be filed is the 1120 "S", rather than the 1120. Whether or not you decide to be taxed as an S-Corporation, your company is still a "General Corporation" in the eyes of the state of incorporation.
...
[
But we can setup Solo or Partership or C-Corp. Don't run into legal issues by setting up S-Corp on EAD, before getting GC.
Good luck.
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
amitjoey
07-11 01:08 PM
is there any way, any way in this whole freakin process, that we can get some sort of explanation for eb3-I first hand from DOS or USCIS? i mean there needs to be some justification for the acts? i know there are laws to interpret these dates, but how do we know that those laws are interpreted correctly by DOS or USCIS? though i am in eb3-I , jan 2003, i personally know atleast 3 folks who are in 2002 - eb3-I. Can we get some sort of guidance here.
I do not get it either. They seem to have this very complex formula to determine where to move the cutoff dates or they simply roll a dice. Is there no transperancy. Sometimes I figure I should just not be bothered. It is black box!!. But I can really not do that!. Atleast we are participating actively in the call campaigns. But is that all we can do?
EB3- June 2003, India
I do not get it either. They seem to have this very complex formula to determine where to move the cutoff dates or they simply roll a dice. Is there no transperancy. Sometimes I figure I should just not be bothered. It is black box!!. But I can really not do that!. Atleast we are participating actively in the call campaigns. But is that all we can do?
EB3- June 2003, India
more...
marwan234
08-24 01:07 PM
My wife is on H4, i'm on H1B. She applied for DL renewal and was renewed for 1 yr.
They accepted visa, passport, i-94, and H4 renewal receipt notice.
They gave her one year from receipt notice.
What a relief. i was worried they would not accept it.
That was in Sterling VA DMV.:)
They accepted visa, passport, i-94, and H4 renewal receipt notice.
They gave her one year from receipt notice.
What a relief. i was worried they would not accept it.
That was in Sterling VA DMV.:)
2010 2011 Porsche 911 Carrera 4S
eastindia
04-29 05:40 PM
Can I call now? When will office close?
more...
priti8888
07-23 05:12 PM
Thanks for the reply and encouragement. This is what makes this Immigration Voice community different from others...
no problem
no problem
hair Porsche 911 Carrera 4: Porsche
munnu77
03-16 10:20 AM
I just called ....
They said they r trying to fix it...
They said they r trying to fix it...
more...
pappu
02-01 11:59 PM
could someone take the initiative of organizing conference calls.
hot The Porsche 911 Carrera 4 GTS
Edison99
01-10 11:42 AM
Congrats
9years & vayumahesh! Enjoy the freedom...................
Finally a happy ending to my green card journey. Received our cards on Saturday. Thank You IV and I wish all the best for everyone.
9years & vayumahesh! Enjoy the freedom...................
Finally a happy ending to my green card journey. Received our cards on Saturday. Thank You IV and I wish all the best for everyone.
more...
house CARRERA 4 4S TARGA 433MHz
BPforGC
07-18 07:32 PM
Based on what my lawyer said, this is how it happens.
1. LC/I-140 processing is independent from I-485.
2. I-485 RD is critical.
3. When your date comes and when they review your application, they will check if your I-140 is approved or not. Then they will look in the application and if everything is ok (FP, background check - Name check etc) and if VISA number is available, you will get it.
If they don't have VISA numbers available, they will not process any I-485. So, availability of VISA numbers is key when they process I-485.
PD of I-140 comes into play when we have retrogression. Since they opened flood gates, all of us who apply now will go by our I-485 RD. Until substantial numbers of our applications are cleared, there is no chance that future VISA bulletins will be current. Even though future VISA bulletins show PD way earlier than your PD, your I-485 may get approved since you are in the system.
So, who ever gets to apply I-485 are in much better shape than people with PDs in 2002 or 2003 but do not file I-485 now.
REMEMBER, USCIS USUALLY DO NOT FOLLOW ORDER AND YOU HAVE TO BE VERY LUCKY OTHER THAN TURNING ALL THE RIGHT PAPER WORK.
Good luck folks.:p :confused: :rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :mad: :D
1. LC/I-140 processing is independent from I-485.
2. I-485 RD is critical.
3. When your date comes and when they review your application, they will check if your I-140 is approved or not. Then they will look in the application and if everything is ok (FP, background check - Name check etc) and if VISA number is available, you will get it.
If they don't have VISA numbers available, they will not process any I-485. So, availability of VISA numbers is key when they process I-485.
PD of I-140 comes into play when we have retrogression. Since they opened flood gates, all of us who apply now will go by our I-485 RD. Until substantial numbers of our applications are cleared, there is no chance that future VISA bulletins will be current. Even though future VISA bulletins show PD way earlier than your PD, your I-485 may get approved since you are in the system.
So, who ever gets to apply I-485 are in much better shape than people with PDs in 2002 or 2003 but do not file I-485 now.
REMEMBER, USCIS USUALLY DO NOT FOLLOW ORDER AND YOU HAVE TO BE VERY LUCKY OTHER THAN TURNING ALL THE RIGHT PAPER WORK.
Good luck folks.:p :confused: :rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :mad: :D
tattoo This pre owned Porsche Carrera
Macaca
09-14 06:38 PM
Immigration vote sinks H-1B visa deal (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=94517&postcount=567) Collapse of Senate bill derails tech's bid for more foreigners ByTom Abate (tabate@sfchronicle.com) | Chronicle Staff Writer, June 30, 2007
VISA PLAN ANGERS SILICON VALLEY (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=78888&postcount=136) Immigration bill would limit employers' choice of workers By Carolyn Lochhead (clochhead@sfchronicle.com) | Chronicle Washington Bureau, June 7, 2007
VISA PLAN ANGERS SILICON VALLEY (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=78888&postcount=136) Immigration bill would limit employers' choice of workers By Carolyn Lochhead (clochhead@sfchronicle.com) | Chronicle Washington Bureau, June 7, 2007
more...
pictures 2006 Porsche 911 Carrera 4
tinamatthew
07-21 05:44 PM
Hi Tina,
Do you know any employer or recruiting agency (in NY) who can help sponsoring physical therapists for 140 & 485.
I got a NY work permit and got my crdentials evaluated but unfortunately that emplyer is no longer having job vacancy. Now I am stuck and don't know if I can get benefit from some other employer.
Any input would be greatly helpful.
Hi GC
Are you EB2/EB3?
Did your previous employer put up the notice for 10 business days?
Are you willing to relocate if you don't find a sponsor in NY. Time is not on our side if you are EB3.
Even if you found an employer who is willing to sponsor you now, you still have the problem of the 40 day poster.
Let me know.
Do you know any employer or recruiting agency (in NY) who can help sponsoring physical therapists for 140 & 485.
I got a NY work permit and got my crdentials evaluated but unfortunately that emplyer is no longer having job vacancy. Now I am stuck and don't know if I can get benefit from some other employer.
Any input would be greatly helpful.
Hi GC
Are you EB2/EB3?
Did your previous employer put up the notice for 10 business days?
Are you willing to relocate if you don't find a sponsor in NY. Time is not on our side if you are EB3.
Even if you found an employer who is willing to sponsor you now, you still have the problem of the 40 day poster.
Let me know.
dresses Added: 12 March 2011. Car
snathan
02-08 12:59 AM
i am going to marry my sister's daughter.. Sweet girl
All the girls are not like that. ;)
anyway my comments are about the crazy, career oriented, tradition less girls. And most of teh US girls are like that. Ofcourse not 100%, there may be few jewels..
Congrats...!!! Welcome on board.
All the girls are not like that. ;)
anyway my comments are about the crazy, career oriented, tradition less girls. And most of teh US girls are like that. Ofcourse not 100%, there may be few jewels..
Congrats...!!! Welcome on board.
more...
makeup 2011 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 GTS
pxkuma
06-01 07:45 PM
I think this question may have been addressed before, so I apologize for the duplication.
I am trying to change my job and have an approved I-140 with a priority date of August 2006. The question is if I am successful in porting my old August PD for my new I-140 applied after May 2007, would I come under this new merit system? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I am trying to change my job and have an approved I-140 with a priority date of August 2006. The question is if I am successful in porting my old August PD for my new I-140 applied after May 2007, would I come under this new merit system? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
girlfriend 2003 Porsche Carrera 4
BlueCard
10-01 12:13 PM
If this news is true, then we can see "wild" approvals before the end of September. Some people with complete cases may overtake others.
Mine was probably such a wild case. With a PD of DEC2004 Eb3 ROW, I-140 approved in 2006, filed I-485 in June (ND: June 27), FP: August 1st, "Notice sent welcoming permanent resident" on September 17th, received my card 4 days later, even before the notices. Less than 3 months total processing time, end to end.
I guess they just picked the low hanging fruit and fast-tracked like crazy to waste as little visa numbers as possible. But still not fast enough...
Mine was probably such a wild case. With a PD of DEC2004 Eb3 ROW, I-140 approved in 2006, filed I-485 in June (ND: June 27), FP: August 1st, "Notice sent welcoming permanent resident" on September 17th, received my card 4 days later, even before the notices. Less than 3 months total processing time, end to end.
I guess they just picked the low hanging fruit and fast-tracked like crazy to waste as little visa numbers as possible. But still not fast enough...
hairstyles 2009 Porsche 911 Carrera 4s
WeldonSprings
05-02 03:27 PM
That comment was made for Family Visas, since everyone who applies on Family Visa, might not eventually get it. I read here that King said that everyon on EAD and AP is getting a free ride even thought here green card might get rejected. What does he mean by that. I tahught every process goes thorugha security check. such as I 140, H1b, AP and even EAD.
smuthu2000
07-13 06:13 PM
artesia CA
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
No comments:
Post a Comment