joshraj
10-09 10:17 PM
At least got something today :)
Filed: July 27
Center: Neb
RD: Not Yet - Got Tranfer Notice - To Texas
FP: Not Yet
EAD: Not Yet
I140 - Pending at Nebraska
Filed: July 27
Center: Neb
RD: Not Yet - Got Tranfer Notice - To Texas
FP: Not Yet
EAD: Not Yet
I140 - Pending at Nebraska
wallpaper Photo from:JAGUAR XK8 amp; XKR
akhilmahajan
04-11 03:19 PM
Updating profile should fill up your information in the tracker.
Will make a not of it.
Thanks a lot.
GO IV GO
Will make a not of it.
Thanks a lot.
GO IV GO
jonty_11
07-16 07:09 PM
It would help if you guys provide ur PDs to get an idea what PD folks are getting CP interview calls?
2011 Jaguar XKR
vnsriv
03-28 01:25 PM
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
Dude you are looking at wrong link. Go to this http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
Check what is your PD. Make sure you are looking at right country/category/type. Compare your PD against what is posted here. If your PD is earlier than this date , then only start screaming. Else go in infinite wait loop.
PS : All the best.
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
Dude you are looking at wrong link. Go to this http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
Check what is your PD. Make sure you are looking at right country/category/type. Compare your PD against what is posted here. If your PD is earlier than this date , then only start screaming. Else go in infinite wait loop.
PS : All the best.
more...
kaisersose
04-16 02:29 PM
Hi Gurus,
I am on 9th year H1B extension.I filed I140/485 concurrently in June 2007 and on April 11th I got the denial email for I140.
No RFE/NOID received.
Here is my case.
PD May 2003, EB2, own labor. During Dec 06, the labor was converted from NON RIR to RIR and amended to accept BS+5 OR MS+3 to reflect the current state.
I-140/485/EAD/AP applied in June 2007, NSC and received EAD/AP and used AP recently. My H1B valid till Feb 2009.
After 5 stressful days finally today, we got the denial notice and it looks like USCIS assumed my Labor under EB3 classification and rejected my I140 where as the labor certificate is approved under EB2 classification. our attorney believes that its the result of an overlook by IO at the amedments made to the original labor.
Please let me know what options I have.
Thanks
GCWarrior
If your attorney is right, then you have nothing to worry about. An MTR will fix the problem.
I am on 9th year H1B extension.I filed I140/485 concurrently in June 2007 and on April 11th I got the denial email for I140.
No RFE/NOID received.
Here is my case.
PD May 2003, EB2, own labor. During Dec 06, the labor was converted from NON RIR to RIR and amended to accept BS+5 OR MS+3 to reflect the current state.
I-140/485/EAD/AP applied in June 2007, NSC and received EAD/AP and used AP recently. My H1B valid till Feb 2009.
After 5 stressful days finally today, we got the denial notice and it looks like USCIS assumed my Labor under EB3 classification and rejected my I140 where as the labor certificate is approved under EB2 classification. our attorney believes that its the result of an overlook by IO at the amedments made to the original labor.
Please let me know what options I have.
Thanks
GCWarrior
If your attorney is right, then you have nothing to worry about. An MTR will fix the problem.
aachoo
02-21 01:33 AM
You are not alone�
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
My job is in the same company, same classification etc. I am not worried about that. The problem (I guess the GC mess can make you twist the best things into problems) is the $40K+ in raises I have received since then...
-a
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
My job is in the same company, same classification etc. I am not worried about that. The problem (I guess the GC mess can make you twist the best things into problems) is the $40K+ in raises I have received since then...
-a
more...
vinoddas
07-30 02:37 AM
I liked the joke.. the title originally was: "Difficult Spouse related GC question" ;)
I will definitely consider doing that. I am just afraid that I might get my GC even before I get a chance to do a court marriage.
Thanks for the input.
I will definitely consider doing that. I am just afraid that I might get my GC even before I get a chance to do a court marriage.
Thanks for the input.
2010 Both the Jaguar XK8 and Jaguar
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
more...
qasleuth
01-08 12:39 AM
Hello miss neha ,
Based on your post ....somehow I seriously doubt that you even got accepted into a premium university for MBA in the US of A ... are you sure its really premium? ... How the hell did a premium university accept an essay with such dastardly atrocious english???
your question is interesting .... and a premium university MBA person should be able to decipher the basic H1B regulations ....
The short answer ... yes if you already have a H1B visa and started work on it , you will be "cap-exempt" for subsequent "transfers" ...
Regards
Hinglish
Can you phrase a single complete sentence without '.....' ?
Dastardly means cowardly. What does "dastardly atrocious english" mean in the context of Neha's post ?
Sentences start with capital letters, need to have commas, and there should be proper usage of articles. I can point out atrocious mistakes in every sentence of your post.
Apart from your atrocious English, your profile is incorrect, your presumptions/tone is even more atrocious (addressing the poster as 'Miss', using words like 'hell'). Best of luck.
Based on your post ....somehow I seriously doubt that you even got accepted into a premium university for MBA in the US of A ... are you sure its really premium? ... How the hell did a premium university accept an essay with such dastardly atrocious english???
your question is interesting .... and a premium university MBA person should be able to decipher the basic H1B regulations ....
The short answer ... yes if you already have a H1B visa and started work on it , you will be "cap-exempt" for subsequent "transfers" ...
Regards
Hinglish
Can you phrase a single complete sentence without '.....' ?
Dastardly means cowardly. What does "dastardly atrocious english" mean in the context of Neha's post ?
Sentences start with capital letters, need to have commas, and there should be proper usage of articles. I can point out atrocious mistakes in every sentence of your post.
Apart from your atrocious English, your profile is incorrect, your presumptions/tone is even more atrocious (addressing the poster as 'Miss', using words like 'hell'). Best of luck.
hair Jaguar XK Cabrio
ebizash
06-26 01:50 PM
How can any court / law hold the employee accountable for a contract that he / she did not sign? If I am reading it right, the OP is saying that the contract was signed by recruiter stating that the employee will be responsible for all costs. If that is the case, the contract should be binding on the recruiter if any one at all.
more...
GCVivek
03-23 03:06 PM
If your new I-797 came with a new I-94 attached at the bottom, you should be fine. Usually, if you renew H1-B past the expiration date, you are classified under "Consular Approval" and therefore must get H1B stamped into your passport the next time you leave and want to enter the US.
hot Jaguar XKR Coupé
amitga
03-17 11:29 AM
Its SUTAIN Act not STRIVE Act.
more...
house Jaguar XKR Convertible Phoenix
murali3000
03-04 12:09 PM
I do a short term stock trading with great profits , if you want I can share my stock picks , PM me.
tattoo Jaguar XK8 Convertible Power
mmanurker
12-31 04:36 PM
Is your PD is current ? Goodluck any how.
I have a loooonnnngg wait...my PD is Dec'2003 EB3-I. What is ur PD?
I have a loooonnnngg wait...my PD is Dec'2003 EB3-I. What is ur PD?
more...
pictures Jaguar XKR Cabrio en Coupé: de
tnite
07-26 09:27 AM
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife’s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife’s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
I think your lawyer is too optimistic about EB3 March 2005 being current in the immediate future.Maybe he's right .I dont know
But looking at the possible choice you have mentioned :
1.This is the best option . ie you apply for I485 right now and add you wife when she's in the US later when the date is current.The reason being that for USCIS to approve your GC the date should be current and if its current then you're eligible to apply for your wife's I485.Its a loop. For one thing(GC Approval) to happen the other thing(Date being current) has to happen.
2.The 2nd choice is same as the 1st one. Many here are prediciting that there will be severe retrogression in the Oct bulletin and no one with a right state of mind can even guess the dates at this point of time.
3.Why do you think it would be a grave mistake in life? If you think u'r taking a big risk then make your wife's status independent of your's by applying for H1b or F1 which is option 4. You should talk to a lawyer about the intent issues on F1 visa. I am not aware of that. I know that if one's one F1 or any other non-dual intent visa they shouldnt(risky and chances are higher for denial) apply for any immigrant visa within 90 days of their arrival or in your wife's case change of status.Search for more info on the web.
But my choice would be the first one. It's not risky for the reasons I had mentioned.
my 2 cents
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife’s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife’s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
I think your lawyer is too optimistic about EB3 March 2005 being current in the immediate future.Maybe he's right .I dont know
But looking at the possible choice you have mentioned :
1.This is the best option . ie you apply for I485 right now and add you wife when she's in the US later when the date is current.The reason being that for USCIS to approve your GC the date should be current and if its current then you're eligible to apply for your wife's I485.Its a loop. For one thing(GC Approval) to happen the other thing(Date being current) has to happen.
2.The 2nd choice is same as the 1st one. Many here are prediciting that there will be severe retrogression in the Oct bulletin and no one with a right state of mind can even guess the dates at this point of time.
3.Why do you think it would be a grave mistake in life? If you think u'r taking a big risk then make your wife's status independent of your's by applying for H1b or F1 which is option 4. You should talk to a lawyer about the intent issues on F1 visa. I am not aware of that. I know that if one's one F1 or any other non-dual intent visa they shouldnt(risky and chances are higher for denial) apply for any immigrant visa within 90 days of their arrival or in your wife's case change of status.Search for more info on the web.
But my choice would be the first one. It's not risky for the reasons I had mentioned.
my 2 cents
dresses 2010 Jaguar Xkr Convertible
amsgc
03-31 02:53 PM
I have a somewat similar situation, here goes:
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
more...
makeup 2010 Jaguar XKR - Front Angle
Euclid
02-12 10:07 AM
Hi Ann,
Thanks so much!
Hi Euclid,
In my opinion, your situation clearly falls within the "receipt rule". The rec't for replacement of the lost EAD is good for up to 90 days. Below is an excerpt from the the most recent I-9 Handbook for Employers published by USCIS. This pretty clearly differentiates between a rec't for an initial or renewal application and a rec't for an application to replace a lost document.
Ann
Q When can employees present receipts for documents in lieu of actual documents establishing employment authorization?
A The �receipt rule� is designed to cover situations in which an employee is employment autho- rized at the time of initial hire or reverification, but he or she is not in possession of a document listed on page 5 of Form I-9. Receipts showing that a person has applied for an initial grant of employment authorization or for renewal of employment authorization are not acceptable.
An individual may present a receipt in lieu of a document listed on Form I-9 to complete Section 2 of Form I-9.The receipt is valid for a temporary period.There are three different documents that qualify as receipts under the rule:
32
1.
A receipt for a replacement document when the document has been lost, stolen, or damaged.The receipt is valid for 90 days, after which the individual must present the
replacement document to complete Form I-9.
Note: This rule does not apply to individuals who pres- ent receipts for new documents following the expiration of their previously held document.
Thanks so much!
Hi Euclid,
In my opinion, your situation clearly falls within the "receipt rule". The rec't for replacement of the lost EAD is good for up to 90 days. Below is an excerpt from the the most recent I-9 Handbook for Employers published by USCIS. This pretty clearly differentiates between a rec't for an initial or renewal application and a rec't for an application to replace a lost document.
Ann
Q When can employees present receipts for documents in lieu of actual documents establishing employment authorization?
A The �receipt rule� is designed to cover situations in which an employee is employment autho- rized at the time of initial hire or reverification, but he or she is not in possession of a document listed on page 5 of Form I-9. Receipts showing that a person has applied for an initial grant of employment authorization or for renewal of employment authorization are not acceptable.
An individual may present a receipt in lieu of a document listed on Form I-9 to complete Section 2 of Form I-9.The receipt is valid for a temporary period.There are three different documents that qualify as receipts under the rule:
32
1.
A receipt for a replacement document when the document has been lost, stolen, or damaged.The receipt is valid for 90 days, after which the individual must present the
replacement document to complete Form I-9.
Note: This rule does not apply to individuals who pres- ent receipts for new documents following the expiration of their previously held document.
girlfriend Jaguar XK XK8 Convertible
logiclife
05-11 11:40 AM
Venue
Bombay Palace
2020 K St. NW, Washington, DC
Time
6:30pm to 9:30pm
Valet parking available(Free after 5:30 PM)
Metro directions
(Easily accessible by metro.)
Few blocks from the follow. metro stops:
Farragut North (RED line - Connecticut Avenue and K Street) and
Farragut West (BLUE and ORANGE lines - 18th and I street)
RSVP by Friday (05/12) 4:00 p.m.:
(Please include the total number of people. Children not allowed.)
jay@immigrationvoice.org (http://us.f524.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jay@immigrationvoice.org)
info@ immigrationvoice.org (http://us.f524.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=info@immigrationvoice.org)
Bombay Palace
2020 K St. NW, Washington, DC
Time
6:30pm to 9:30pm
Valet parking available(Free after 5:30 PM)
Metro directions
(Easily accessible by metro.)
Few blocks from the follow. metro stops:
Farragut North (RED line - Connecticut Avenue and K Street) and
Farragut West (BLUE and ORANGE lines - 18th and I street)
RSVP by Friday (05/12) 4:00 p.m.:
(Please include the total number of people. Children not allowed.)
jay@immigrationvoice.org (http://us.f524.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jay@immigrationvoice.org)
info@ immigrationvoice.org (http://us.f524.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=info@immigrationvoice.org)
hairstyles Jaguar XK8 Convertible
GCwaitforever
05-26 10:36 PM
Guy, we can send a small hand written card to our senators and to QGA(if we are thankful enough). Thi is what I'm going to do:cool:
Amen to that.
Amen to that.
Better_Days
11-03 06:20 PM
I disagree. I think that we will see an another attempt at CIR bill. Dems will want to capitalize on their surge among the hispanic bloc; see the comments by Nancy Palosi [sp?]. An attempt will be made to cast it as an aid for economy: to bring people out of shadows so that they can buy houses etc.
But then this is just my opinion which, like yours, is just an opinion. Heck even my 5 year old these days does not seem to hold my opinion in any regard :)
NOPE.
Earlier democrats had a reason of not getting things done [Bush's veto, filibuster...etc.etc]
Now nothing will get done, and they will have no reasons.
Welcome to world of politics my friend :)
But then this is just my opinion which, like yours, is just an opinion. Heck even my 5 year old these days does not seem to hold my opinion in any regard :)
NOPE.
Earlier democrats had a reason of not getting things done [Bush's veto, filibuster...etc.etc]
Now nothing will get done, and they will have no reasons.
Welcome to world of politics my friend :)
GCEB2
09-20 11:06 PM
Thanks for the info. how about areas like simivalley, santa clarita, do you get houses for 300 to 350 and
And also around bay area- san roman, liver moore are they good neighbourhood. Also which has more jobs in datawarehousing is it LA or bayarea.
And also around bay area- san roman, liver moore are they good neighbourhood. Also which has more jobs in datawarehousing is it LA or bayarea.
No comments:
Post a Comment