natrajs
08-30 05:00 PM
Congrats and Best Wishes
Thanks for your support to IV
Thanks for your support to IV
wallpaper pixar cars 2 posters. pixar
saketh555
05-04 03:21 PM
I'm moving from MI to TX and need to do something address. Does premium mail forwarding service works for USCIS notices? I know regular mail forwarding doesn't work and they'll be returned to INS. Please let me know if premium service works or not.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Ramba
01-08 04:18 PM
No offense to anyone but I think this is how the market is flooded sometimes with short term trained and oppurtunisticly timing decisions made by people.
Before you change careers I think you ought to see whether it really fits ur goals and aspirations..my 2 cents... CHances are you may not even like that job and want ot get trained in something else...I dont make a boat load of money but I like my job so far...however if money is the sole (please dont confuse this with means of living) reason to get into any job there are so many jobs and fields one can explore and change often...Its all your personal choice...
Good point. I am just studying the trade off between "career" and "likability" of job or the job you love. I agree with you about money. I am not just for money or I do not want to be in rat race. (If money is the only goal we all can do real estate bussiness in India) After spending 10 years in engineering, I want to change the field. Even I am ready to go with little less than what I make now. . The main reason is I want to have just relaxing job, not much stress. At the same time it should be a longterm. I thought QA may be one of the field. I do not know yet it is a right thought.
Before you change careers I think you ought to see whether it really fits ur goals and aspirations..my 2 cents... CHances are you may not even like that job and want ot get trained in something else...I dont make a boat load of money but I like my job so far...however if money is the sole (please dont confuse this with means of living) reason to get into any job there are so many jobs and fields one can explore and change often...Its all your personal choice...
Good point. I am just studying the trade off between "career" and "likability" of job or the job you love. I agree with you about money. I am not just for money or I do not want to be in rat race. (If money is the only goal we all can do real estate bussiness in India) After spending 10 years in engineering, I want to change the field. Even I am ready to go with little less than what I make now. . The main reason is I want to have just relaxing job, not much stress. At the same time it should be a longterm. I thought QA may be one of the field. I do not know yet it is a right thought.
2011 cars 2 poster japan3 Three
tikka
05-29 09:08 PM
Donot forget to send the webfax :)
thanks
2750 web faxes have been sent! we are trying to get to 3,000.:)
thanks
2750 web faxes have been sent! we are trying to get to 3,000.:)
more...
BECsufferer
05-11 09:17 PM
If everybody writes one letter per week to President O. and mail it using postal mail, soon their would be a buzz. We need that buzz now.
It will cost us $.44 each to mail letter and as these letters continue to pour in (obviously re-directed to waste bin), the word about all this will leak to media and ultimately to Mr. O.
Want to do it?
It will cost us $.44 each to mail letter and as these letters continue to pour in (obviously re-directed to waste bin), the word about all this will leak to media and ultimately to Mr. O.
Want to do it?
akhilmahajan
05-03 08:42 PM
that was pretty fast............ i wish everyone else is that lucky also........
more...
transpass
04-23 09:34 AM
Pardon my ignorance...But I thought you need to sign the labor form before you submit. If you have signed it, how does it fly trying to sue the lawyer? Aren't you responsible for double checking before it is filed?
Or due to new PERM stuff, you don't get to see the labor form and don't get to sign any paperwork?
Or due to new PERM stuff, you don't get to see the labor form and don't get to sign any paperwork?
2010 Poster For Pixar#39;s CARS 2
chanduv23
09-22 10:00 AM
Small companies will do this. If it is a big company with HR and payroll departments not being micro managed by the employer - then you won't face these problems.
more...
mach1343
01-26 11:18 AM
Minneapolis has the best education for children. Weather wise we have to compromise when it comes to children.
hair house Disney Pixar “Cars 2″
lazycis
10-29 03:02 PM
I found out (via attorney) that the right way to do it is to send a new G-28 form to USCIS. Put your name as a petitioner and as a representative, check box 4 (other) and write "I would like to represent myself in all matters related to my I-485 filing".
more...
Ramba
05-04 05:37 PM
If you are confident that the denial is purly the mistake of USCIS, then contact the Omdusman about this and explain to him that, it is a pure mistake of USCIS and the fee to MTR is not justifyable. Perhaps, Omdusman office will help you.
(I assume that you have submitted all the required documents as per RFE, and those documents meets the eligiblity for your approval)
(I assume that you have submitted all the required documents as per RFE, and those documents meets the eligiblity for your approval)
hot Disney-Pixar#39;s #39;Cars 2′
immigrationbond007
07-04 06:26 PM
Firstly, congrats!! BTW, when did you get the fingerprinting completed in your case? Want to get an idea as to how fast the whole process was done. Lets hope it is this way when our turn comes ;)
I am from Bosnia, so yes I guess it's ROW (rest of the world).
I whish you all the best resolution of this crisis. Trully. I really feel your pain and the pain of many of my friends who are affected by this.
I know when I first came on this site, it was devastating to read about so much negative stuff, so many cases in a limbo for years. I wanted to read som positive stories too. So, I hope that cases like mine give some people hope.
I am from Bosnia, so yes I guess it's ROW (rest of the world).
I whish you all the best resolution of this crisis. Trully. I really feel your pain and the pain of many of my friends who are affected by this.
I know when I first came on this site, it was devastating to read about so much negative stuff, so many cases in a limbo for years. I wanted to read som positive stories too. So, I hope that cases like mine give some people hope.
more...
house It makes me want to see Cars 2
frostrated
07-06 12:41 PM
you can enter in AP, but you cannot work on H1B status. You need an EAD. You can work in H1B status if you enter in H1B.
tattoo Disney Pixar “Cars 2″ Movie
vjkypally
05-29 08:54 AM
Same here.
I am july 07 filer and I got RFE for EVL and that should be on companys letter head and a copy of it with job description and offer for full time with salary. (In fact I have sent AC21 through attorney)
And RFE for current residence proof
I am july 07 filer and I got RFE for EVL and that should be on companys letter head and a copy of it with job description and offer for full time with salary. (In fact I have sent AC21 through attorney)
And RFE for current residence proof
more...
pictures Poster for Pixar#39;s #39;Cars 2
Ramba
01-08 04:18 PM
No offense to anyone but I think this is how the market is flooded sometimes with short term trained and oppurtunisticly timing decisions made by people.
Before you change careers I think you ought to see whether it really fits ur goals and aspirations..my 2 cents... CHances are you may not even like that job and want ot get trained in something else...I dont make a boat load of money but I like my job so far...however if money is the sole (please dont confuse this with means of living) reason to get into any job there are so many jobs and fields one can explore and change often...Its all your personal choice...
Good point. I am just studying the trade off between "career" and "likability" of job or the job you love. I agree with you about money. I am not just for money or I do not want to be in rat race. (If money is the only goal we all can do real estate bussiness in India) After spending 10 years in engineering, I want to change the field. Even I am ready to go with little less than what I make now. . The main reason is I want to have just relaxing job, not much stress. At the same time it should be a longterm. I thought QA may be one of the field. I do not know yet it is a right thought.
Before you change careers I think you ought to see whether it really fits ur goals and aspirations..my 2 cents... CHances are you may not even like that job and want ot get trained in something else...I dont make a boat load of money but I like my job so far...however if money is the sole (please dont confuse this with means of living) reason to get into any job there are so many jobs and fields one can explore and change often...Its all your personal choice...
Good point. I am just studying the trade off between "career" and "likability" of job or the job you love. I agree with you about money. I am not just for money or I do not want to be in rat race. (If money is the only goal we all can do real estate bussiness in India) After spending 10 years in engineering, I want to change the field. Even I am ready to go with little less than what I make now. . The main reason is I want to have just relaxing job, not much stress. At the same time it should be a longterm. I thought QA may be one of the field. I do not know yet it is a right thought.
dresses pixar cars 2 posters.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
makeup pixar cars 2 posters.
BharatPremi
11-08 11:30 PM
Dear IV members,
The Design and Publicity work group is an active task force dedicated to creating materials to spread IV's message. We are engaged in creating posters, fliers, Cartoons and Videos, and will also be producing web related material, informational handouts and power point presentations. We are looking for active volunteers with specific related skills to work with us on these projects. If you are working in design/media/advertising etc or simply have design/drawing/writing skills and are interested in being a part of this group, please answer to this thread. We are specifically looking for someone with knowledge of the media/advertising and an understanding of web searches especially google search rankings.
We are also looking for volunteers for media contacts and content creation/analysis (needs good writing and analytical skills), work groups.
If you live in the DC area (or even within reasonable driving distance) and would like to participate in lawmaker meetings, please let us know.
Please also see Pappu's request for a volunteer to work as iv-coordinator in a separate thread.
Remember that we cannot accept anonymous members. All these groups will be privy to sensitive information and we must be able to trust our volunteers. So please complete your profiles so that we can contact you.
Sending you a PM.
The Design and Publicity work group is an active task force dedicated to creating materials to spread IV's message. We are engaged in creating posters, fliers, Cartoons and Videos, and will also be producing web related material, informational handouts and power point presentations. We are looking for active volunteers with specific related skills to work with us on these projects. If you are working in design/media/advertising etc or simply have design/drawing/writing skills and are interested in being a part of this group, please answer to this thread. We are specifically looking for someone with knowledge of the media/advertising and an understanding of web searches especially google search rankings.
We are also looking for volunteers for media contacts and content creation/analysis (needs good writing and analytical skills), work groups.
If you live in the DC area (or even within reasonable driving distance) and would like to participate in lawmaker meetings, please let us know.
Please also see Pappu's request for a volunteer to work as iv-coordinator in a separate thread.
Remember that we cannot accept anonymous members. All these groups will be privy to sensitive information and we must be able to trust our volunteers. So please complete your profiles so that we can contact you.
Sending you a PM.
girlfriend CARS 2 Disney Pixar Triptych
kumar1
12-26 01:58 PM
H1/H4/L1/L2... - Non-Permanent Resident Alien
F1/F2 - Non-Permanent Non-resident Alien.
Green Card - Permanent Resident Alien.
Citizen - Naturalized citizen
Resident and Non-resident make a difference in taxation.
Non Permanent Resident Alien - If you are on H-1, they call you non-permanent resident alien. “Non-Permanent” because you are on a temporary visa, resident because IRS treats you just like any other US citizen living in that state.
Non-Permanent Non-Resident alien - Foreign students fall in this category (but it is not limited to them). “Non Permanent” comes from F-1 visa which is a temporary visa and Non Resident because you do not have intentions to live in the US permanently (or at least that is the farce that US embassy wants to listen). If you are on F-1 visa during, that time period you are not supposed to pay social security (6.5%) and Medicare taxes. Thanks to Non-Resident status. This is also applicable during 1 year OPT work permit that comes after F1.
Permanent Resident Alien - Permanent word is there because you have long term visa (yes, green cars is nothing but a long term visa) and resident because IRS will tax you like any other resident citizen.
Let me know if I am wrong anywhere. Thanks
F1/F2 - Non-Permanent Non-resident Alien.
Green Card - Permanent Resident Alien.
Citizen - Naturalized citizen
Resident and Non-resident make a difference in taxation.
Non Permanent Resident Alien - If you are on H-1, they call you non-permanent resident alien. “Non-Permanent” because you are on a temporary visa, resident because IRS treats you just like any other US citizen living in that state.
Non-Permanent Non-Resident alien - Foreign students fall in this category (but it is not limited to them). “Non Permanent” comes from F-1 visa which is a temporary visa and Non Resident because you do not have intentions to live in the US permanently (or at least that is the farce that US embassy wants to listen). If you are on F-1 visa during, that time period you are not supposed to pay social security (6.5%) and Medicare taxes. Thanks to Non-Resident status. This is also applicable during 1 year OPT work permit that comes after F1.
Permanent Resident Alien - Permanent word is there because you have long term visa (yes, green cars is nothing but a long term visa) and resident because IRS will tax you like any other resident citizen.
Let me know if I am wrong anywhere. Thanks
hairstyles Disney Pixar; cars 2 poster.
glamzon
08-02 03:15 PM
lol...nice joke ..can i borrow your pigeon for this weekend ..need to make some weekend deliveries ;)
sobers
02-08 02:58 PM
Intel chairman calls for immigration reform (Financial Times/ Feb 7, 2005)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11221265/
Craig Barrett, chairman of Intel, the world's largest semiconductor maker, called for comprehensive immigration reform to make the US more competitive, during a live question-and-answer session on FT.com.
Mr Barrett, one of a number of technology leaders including Bill Gates to have criticised restrictions on foreign workers in the US, said the first step in simplifying the immigration process would be "to replace the current arbitrary quota system with an open market type approach".
The US's H1-B visa allows foreign engineers and scientists to work on a temporary basis in the US but is capped at 65,000 a year. Mr Barrett said this was inadequate: the current quota had been exhausted and there could be no new admissions until another came into effect in October this year.
Mr Barrett said demand was also greater than supply for green cards that allowed permanent employment, with the cap at 140,000 a year and long processing delays meaning individuals having to wait up to seven years to obtain one.
"These arbitrary caps undercut business's ability to hire and retain the number of highly educated people in the fields where we need to maintain our leading position," he said.
"Instead of arbitrary caps, a market-based approach that responds to demand is needed."
The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.
Mr Barrett was asked by an Intel employee why his company had stopped sponsoring its workers for green cards between 2001 and 2004. The Intel chairman said this was during the longest and deepest recession in the semiconductor industry. It had been waiting for business conditions to improve before resuming the process.
"We should just staple a green card to every advanced degree granted to a foreign national from a US university in science and engineering," he said in another answer.
Mr Barrett also advocated improvements in the US education system to make America more competitive in technology fields.
"Today, we compare ourselves to our neighbours � California to Arizona, Texas to Florida, etc. We do not compare ourselves to the rest of the world and recognise that the bar of achievement, the level necessary for competitiveness is continually being raised."
Craig Barrett: America should open its doors wide to foreign talent
--------
IV Moderators- please use this information in your presentations.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11221265/
Craig Barrett, chairman of Intel, the world's largest semiconductor maker, called for comprehensive immigration reform to make the US more competitive, during a live question-and-answer session on FT.com.
Mr Barrett, one of a number of technology leaders including Bill Gates to have criticised restrictions on foreign workers in the US, said the first step in simplifying the immigration process would be "to replace the current arbitrary quota system with an open market type approach".
The US's H1-B visa allows foreign engineers and scientists to work on a temporary basis in the US but is capped at 65,000 a year. Mr Barrett said this was inadequate: the current quota had been exhausted and there could be no new admissions until another came into effect in October this year.
Mr Barrett said demand was also greater than supply for green cards that allowed permanent employment, with the cap at 140,000 a year and long processing delays meaning individuals having to wait up to seven years to obtain one.
"These arbitrary caps undercut business's ability to hire and retain the number of highly educated people in the fields where we need to maintain our leading position," he said.
"Instead of arbitrary caps, a market-based approach that responds to demand is needed."
The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.
Mr Barrett was asked by an Intel employee why his company had stopped sponsoring its workers for green cards between 2001 and 2004. The Intel chairman said this was during the longest and deepest recession in the semiconductor industry. It had been waiting for business conditions to improve before resuming the process.
"We should just staple a green card to every advanced degree granted to a foreign national from a US university in science and engineering," he said in another answer.
Mr Barrett also advocated improvements in the US education system to make America more competitive in technology fields.
"Today, we compare ourselves to our neighbours � California to Arizona, Texas to Florida, etc. We do not compare ourselves to the rest of the world and recognise that the bar of achievement, the level necessary for competitiveness is continually being raised."
Craig Barrett: America should open its doors wide to foreign talent
--------
IV Moderators- please use this information in your presentations.
som_yad
08-04 12:53 PM
EB3-India - RD July 16 2007.
I saw LUD on 07/27/2008 But still no luck.:mad:
I saw LUD on 07/27/2008 But still no luck.:mad: