shishya
09-27 02:19 AM
AFAIK, your visa status will not affect day-trading. You just need to specify the gain/loss when you file taxes (like anyone).
That said, I believe you are aware of the requirement that you need to have a minimum of $25K in your account to do day-trading. And also the risks involved in it.
My 2c as some one who tried it, play only with money you can afford to loose (as you WILL most of the time) and get out if you have to, without emotional attachment.
Have fun and BE SAFE!!!
Thanks for the honest and to-the-point answer Yagw. Yes, I am aware of the risks involved and therefore never EVER exceed the threshold I set for myself. I am not new to stock market having been in it for the past four years -- not that that makes me ANY safer than a newbie though.
Appreciate your advise of caution, will definitely keep that in mind.
Thanks!
That said, I believe you are aware of the requirement that you need to have a minimum of $25K in your account to do day-trading. And also the risks involved in it.
My 2c as some one who tried it, play only with money you can afford to loose (as you WILL most of the time) and get out if you have to, without emotional attachment.
Have fun and BE SAFE!!!
Thanks for the honest and to-the-point answer Yagw. Yes, I am aware of the risks involved and therefore never EVER exceed the threshold I set for myself. I am not new to stock market having been in it for the past four years -- not that that makes me ANY safer than a newbie though.
Appreciate your advise of caution, will definitely keep that in mind.
Thanks!
wallpaper smiley face cartoon. smiley
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
kondur_007
09-22 09:48 AM
What if the employer showed XXX amount on the Labor Certification, and in the offer letter, but send an offer letter to the employee for YYY, where YYY < XXX? Does the employee is still obliged to for with the employer?
Your question is very short, but this is what I understand you are asking:
If GC is approved with XXX salary on the LC and offer letter during the GC process, but then employer only offers/pays YYY salary upon approval of GC.
As far as I can tell, this would be a problem on the part of employer and not the employee. For the most part, employee can leave that employer without any problems in future. what I do not know is, which one of the following option is better:
1. Never join the employer after getting GC as salary offerred after GC is lower than what was on LC.
2. Join the employer for a month or two and then leave giving the reason that "employer did not pay the salary offered in LC". This may be a safer option as you do prove your intention to join the employer and you get a few pay stubs proving that employer is not paying enough salary (not just othe offer letter showing YYY salary, but the hard proof of YYY salary by means of paystubs).
Also if the employer really does not have project, and can not really hire you at a salary offered on LC, and you have good terms with the employer, ask them to "fire" you rather than you leaving them. This way you will be very safe for future citizenship process.
Good Luck.
Your question is very short, but this is what I understand you are asking:
If GC is approved with XXX salary on the LC and offer letter during the GC process, but then employer only offers/pays YYY salary upon approval of GC.
As far as I can tell, this would be a problem on the part of employer and not the employee. For the most part, employee can leave that employer without any problems in future. what I do not know is, which one of the following option is better:
1. Never join the employer after getting GC as salary offerred after GC is lower than what was on LC.
2. Join the employer for a month or two and then leave giving the reason that "employer did not pay the salary offered in LC". This may be a safer option as you do prove your intention to join the employer and you get a few pay stubs proving that employer is not paying enough salary (not just othe offer letter showing YYY salary, but the hard proof of YYY salary by means of paystubs).
Also if the employer really does not have project, and can not really hire you at a salary offered on LC, and you have good terms with the employer, ask them to "fire" you rather than you leaving them. This way you will be very safe for future citizenship process.
Good Luck.
2011 Set of original smiley cartoon
gimmemygreen
01-07 12:14 AM
I recently quit Wipro in United States after servicing two weeks notice period. Wipro didn't want me to stay longer as client was not willing to pay longer than two weeks. I have not signed any service agreement with them when I came onsite on H1B. However, they insist that their deputation letter sent through email is legally binding on me even though I didn't sign a hard copy of the letter. They are asking me to pay $10,00 or serve 6 months notice period which is no longer possible as I have already joined another company. I am seeking legal help in India and planning to sue them as they have withold all my PF, Gratuity, Leave encashment and other dues, experience/relieving letter. Is it possible to sue them in United States as I currently do not stay in India? Also, can I complain to DOL, USCIS about these issues. If yes, how do I go about it?
Sue them buddy. It has potential to become a class action. Wipro is the worst employer with third class management. Managers at Wipro can't even spell Management correctly. Couple years back interviewed with and was sitting on a bridge waiting for these clowns to call in for 35 minutes. After talking to them for first 5 minutes, I hung up my cell phone and never picked their call again. Azim Premji should go back and sell his cooking oil. Managers responsible for this kind of fraud should do 20 years in federal penitentiary and then deported back in plane full of shit to their native country:D.
Sue them buddy. It has potential to become a class action. Wipro is the worst employer with third class management. Managers at Wipro can't even spell Management correctly. Couple years back interviewed with and was sitting on a bridge waiting for these clowns to call in for 35 minutes. After talking to them for first 5 minutes, I hung up my cell phone and never picked their call again. Azim Premji should go back and sell his cooking oil. Managers responsible for this kind of fraud should do 20 years in federal penitentiary and then deported back in plane full of shit to their native country:D.
more...
abhijitp
01-25 05:07 PM
Dreamworld,
Please submit your vote here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16806
Please submit your vote here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16806
priti8888
02-18 06:19 PM
Maintaining legal visa status is not considered a deductible employee business expense. The IRS considers this as a personal expenditure
http://www.neidhartcpa.com/deduct.html
Medical expenses may be deductible but it won't exceed 7.5 % of your AGI so eventually it wont be deductible.
http://www.neidhartcpa.com/deduct.html
Medical expenses may be deductible but it won't exceed 7.5 % of your AGI so eventually it wont be deductible.
more...
vivid_bharti
06-10 04:53 PM
USCIS tops any other US public office in these 3 qualities
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
2010 hot Download Smiley Face clip
kumarc123
02-11 10:52 AM
Looks like the news is out on this in media.
Immigration Voice has been aware of this and actively working on it for last 3 weeks. This had been also posted on the donor forums. Core members and several key IV volunteers/ donors already have been working on it and analyzing it. We also had been asked for our recommendations and had send our recommendations. We should see this bill introduced soon in a few days.
Thank you for your input Pappu and we appreciate your diligence in the efforts to IV. However the question is: will this bill have the potential to move forward?
As I last recall, Zoe Lofgreen had tried a similar bill 3 years ago (2008) that would have eliminated visa backlog, but we all know that bill went no where.
At this point in time, does this bill have the potential to bring aboard the change we all are seeking for so long? I hope it does. As this journey has been quiet long and tedious.
Thank you
Immigration Voice has been aware of this and actively working on it for last 3 weeks. This had been also posted on the donor forums. Core members and several key IV volunteers/ donors already have been working on it and analyzing it. We also had been asked for our recommendations and had send our recommendations. We should see this bill introduced soon in a few days.
Thank you for your input Pappu and we appreciate your diligence in the efforts to IV. However the question is: will this bill have the potential to move forward?
As I last recall, Zoe Lofgreen had tried a similar bill 3 years ago (2008) that would have eliminated visa backlog, but we all know that bill went no where.
At this point in time, does this bill have the potential to bring aboard the change we all are seeking for so long? I hope it does. As this journey has been quiet long and tedious.
Thank you
more...
ndbhatt
01-12 12:54 PM
Get a notarized copy of your passport from Indian Consulate and send it with a letter explaining legalities associated with it.
hair cartoon 3d face smiley
qasleuth
09-17 11:37 AM
Why even bother?
Forget worrying about about CNN and Lou Dobbs. They are NOBODY and of no significance for the quest for immigration reform.
If CNN drops Lou that will not pass CIR or recapture. There are so much Lou Dobbs are there in USA. It is a waste of time.
Wrong and Wrong.
Lou is broadcasting his radio show from Federation for American Immigration Reform's "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" legislative advocacy event. No points for guessing what the event is advocating for. Just wait for CNN to drop Lou and Fox embraces him. It will be just in time when CIR comes back on radar.
If you have been even remotely following the healthcare debate, the fewest (however idiotic or uninformed they are) make the loudest noise, scaring lawmakers. THAT is guaranteed to affect you and I (well not senthil as he already has his GC).
Lou Dobbs | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/lou_dobbs)
Here is a good read on the why's/what's
Timothy Karr: What Beck, Dobbs and Limbaugh Are Really Afraid Of (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/what-beck-dobbs-and-limba_b_288480.html)
Forget worrying about about CNN and Lou Dobbs. They are NOBODY and of no significance for the quest for immigration reform.
If CNN drops Lou that will not pass CIR or recapture. There are so much Lou Dobbs are there in USA. It is a waste of time.
Wrong and Wrong.
Lou is broadcasting his radio show from Federation for American Immigration Reform's "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" legislative advocacy event. No points for guessing what the event is advocating for. Just wait for CNN to drop Lou and Fox embraces him. It will be just in time when CIR comes back on radar.
If you have been even remotely following the healthcare debate, the fewest (however idiotic or uninformed they are) make the loudest noise, scaring lawmakers. THAT is guaranteed to affect you and I (well not senthil as he already has his GC).
Lou Dobbs | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/lou_dobbs)
Here is a good read on the why's/what's
Timothy Karr: What Beck, Dobbs and Limbaugh Are Really Afraid Of (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/what-beck-dobbs-and-limba_b_288480.html)
more...
bestia
11-21 03:16 AM
Meridiani.planum.... Thanks for your reply....
Is the GC under EB-2 that quick? I wonder why my attorney didn't try to FIT me on EB-2... I'll definitely research my 'fitting' options as an EB-2.... now, do you know if are there hidden issues on getting a GC as an EB-2 rather than an EB-3? Or, Is a GC the same regardless the employment-based category?
Attorneys prefer EB3, since there is less evidence needs to be submitted, less scrutiny, less risk of RFE or denial, and therefore less work for the attorney.
"Is GC same..." - philosophical question.. I guess not :) I guess GC for someone who waited for 10 years is not the same as for someone who got it first year being in the US.
Is the GC under EB-2 that quick? I wonder why my attorney didn't try to FIT me on EB-2... I'll definitely research my 'fitting' options as an EB-2.... now, do you know if are there hidden issues on getting a GC as an EB-2 rather than an EB-3? Or, Is a GC the same regardless the employment-based category?
Attorneys prefer EB3, since there is less evidence needs to be submitted, less scrutiny, less risk of RFE or denial, and therefore less work for the attorney.
"Is GC same..." - philosophical question.. I guess not :) I guess GC for someone who waited for 10 years is not the same as for someone who got it first year being in the US.
hot Sad Faces cartoon 2 - search
NKR
06-11 08:13 AM
I had to reclaim all the days that I was outside the country for my 7th year H1 Extension. I submitted photocopies of all the stampings on my passport. Please note that the passport will be stamped upon arrival here and upon departure/arrival in India. That should be sufficient evidence for proof your valid stay here.
more...
house cartoon cute smiley face
mpadapa
10-10 06:40 AM
H1 extensions are never subjected to cap. But if U start using EAD (by filing I-9) then U loose H1 status and hence U break the continuity of H1, so in future if U decide to go back to H1B (for reason like 485 rejected), then U have to apply a NEW H1 which is subjected to cap (not applicable for cap-exempt employment).
H4 is not lost when U use EAD, it is just that U R in AOS status on H4. It is similar to F1, F1 status doesn't allow ppl to work outside campus, but after U graduate, U can work anywhere on EAD (for 1yr) and still be on F1 status and travel using F1. The same Q is answered by susan henner on the IV free conf on Sep 30, the recording of that can be found at http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com/
augustus U'r lawyer is absolutely correct. Come on folks don't scare people..
Afaik, you can file for an H1 extension without being subject to caps as long as an AOS pending. For instance, you can take a break and go to school, and then file for another H1 extension - it won't be subject to the caps. Confirm it with your lawyer.
jazz
H4 is not lost when U use EAD, it is just that U R in AOS status on H4. It is similar to F1, F1 status doesn't allow ppl to work outside campus, but after U graduate, U can work anywhere on EAD (for 1yr) and still be on F1 status and travel using F1. The same Q is answered by susan henner on the IV free conf on Sep 30, the recording of that can be found at http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com/
augustus U'r lawyer is absolutely correct. Come on folks don't scare people..
Afaik, you can file for an H1 extension without being subject to caps as long as an AOS pending. For instance, you can take a break and go to school, and then file for another H1 extension - it won't be subject to the caps. Confirm it with your lawyer.
jazz
tattoo Round Purple Face clip art
dpsg
04-08 11:02 AM
As always appreciate your efforts.
more...
pictures Cartoon Smiley Faces Doodles
Maverick_2008
02-23 09:10 PM
- My 485 is filed more than 6 months ago
- My is 140 not approved yet
- I get laid off
- My employer doesn't revoke my 140
- I'm already in the 8th year of my H
So, I can go find another employer since I have my EAD and my 485 is filed for more than 180 days. Now, if my 140 is approved, no problem. If, however, my 140 gets an RFE or if my 140 is not too strong, I can find out alternatives including (but not limited to :-)) finding a decent job in my home country while I still have a job here in the US.
Is it logical or should I go take a nap? :p
Maverick_2008
Ummm, how exactly is delayed I 140 good if they are about to be laid off? To be able to use AC21 these guys need need their I 140 approved and have worked for the employer 6 months after receipt date.
I don't see the logic in your statement.
- My is 140 not approved yet
- I get laid off
- My employer doesn't revoke my 140
- I'm already in the 8th year of my H
So, I can go find another employer since I have my EAD and my 485 is filed for more than 180 days. Now, if my 140 is approved, no problem. If, however, my 140 gets an RFE or if my 140 is not too strong, I can find out alternatives including (but not limited to :-)) finding a decent job in my home country while I still have a job here in the US.
Is it logical or should I go take a nap? :p
Maverick_2008
Ummm, how exactly is delayed I 140 good if they are about to be laid off? To be able to use AC21 these guys need need their I 140 approved and have worked for the employer 6 months after receipt date.
I don't see the logic in your statement.
dresses happy face cartoon pictures.
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-24 03:19 PM
Rupert Murdoch, Mayor Bloomberg Lobby For Immigration Reform, Path To 'Legal Status' For Illegal Immigrants (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/rupert-murdoch-mayor-bloo_n_623805.html)
Excellent.
Let them lobby.
Agriculture sector and Tech firms, Construction, Latinos have been lobbying for years now but nothing happened.
Immigration will be taken up during the next year. The Top Agenda is energy bill for this year. No Matter who lobbyies nothing gonna matter.
Next year if Reps gain majority in the Senate then It will be tough battle.
Amnesty will not come easy.
If the fight between reps and dems become too intense. No CIR next year either.
Adjobs,dream act,some EB relief, tough border, Fine employers may pass piece meal
which will calm down most of the Immigration lobbyist next year.
If God forbid the market does not pickup next year, jobs, housings, finance .. CIR will be nearly impossible.
Bernanke
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-06-08-bernanke_N.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6523SN20100609
Excellent.
Let them lobby.
Agriculture sector and Tech firms, Construction, Latinos have been lobbying for years now but nothing happened.
Immigration will be taken up during the next year. The Top Agenda is energy bill for this year. No Matter who lobbyies nothing gonna matter.
Next year if Reps gain majority in the Senate then It will be tough battle.
Amnesty will not come easy.
If the fight between reps and dems become too intense. No CIR next year either.
Adjobs,dream act,some EB relief, tough border, Fine employers may pass piece meal
which will calm down most of the Immigration lobbyist next year.
If God forbid the market does not pickup next year, jobs, housings, finance .. CIR will be nearly impossible.
Bernanke
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-06-08-bernanke_N.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6523SN20100609
more...
makeup tattoo cartoon happy face
HV000
10-27 12:31 AM
Being a Democrat, Kennedy is ONLY going to care about ILLEGALS. We all know how much time he spent debating CIR few months ago.
Canned response is a SLAP ON THE FACE!!
Canned response is a SLAP ON THE FACE!!
girlfriend happy face cartoon pictures.
v7461558
07-13 12:21 PM
A bunch of suits on a Saturday afternoon in downtown San Jose will sure look strange. Silicon Valley dress code is not the same as New York, or LA for that matter. Slacks and a shirt (maybe a tie) seem to do it even at venture capitalist meetings with company founders.
hairstyles stock photo : Smiley face rows
LostInGCProcess
09-04 11:07 AM
I beg to disagree on this thought: If you are on H1B until Dec 2009, you will have to file H1B Extention for 7th Year (I am guessing you are in your second h1B renewal). For any reason if you get denial for I-485, your H1B extention will also be cancelled, remember extention was given to you on the basis of pending I-485 (GC).
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
I think in the above scenario, they do not invalidate your H1. You can continue till the end-date on the H1, even though it was approved based on pending I-485. I suggest you consult an attorney on this specific scenario.
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
I think in the above scenario, they do not invalidate your H1. You can continue till the end-date on the H1, even though it was approved based on pending I-485. I suggest you consult an attorney on this specific scenario.
pappu
04-15 05:34 PM
All members are requested to be careful what you post on the forum. Senior members are requested to be vigilant and inform the moderators if you find any post that maybe offensive or from anti immigrants.
This member is not a genuine IV member. No profile information has been given and a fake email id is given.
We will check such members with incomplete profile and point them out on the forum. To avoid such embarresment, please update your profiles with full information.
Bye Bye abby17 and abby from our forums.
This member is not a genuine IV member. No profile information has been given and a fake email id is given.
We will check such members with incomplete profile and point them out on the forum. To avoid such embarresment, please update your profiles with full information.
Bye Bye abby17 and abby from our forums.
vxg
10-17 03:02 PM
Hi,
I have applied for my EAD and I-485 in the month of June '07 and all that i have recieved so far is my wife's EAD. I still did not recieve my EAD nor the finger prints notice nor the 485 yet. I have to move to IL from TX now and i am in a big confusion now. I heard that the mails from the USICS will not be forwarded to any new address by the USPS. If i would want to change my address with the USCIS now will it be a good move or is there any other alternative that you all could suggest me...Please advice me on this issue and help me out of this situation.
Krishna.
You can actually call IO at USCIS and get address updated if you are in the system.
I have applied for my EAD and I-485 in the month of June '07 and all that i have recieved so far is my wife's EAD. I still did not recieve my EAD nor the finger prints notice nor the 485 yet. I have to move to IL from TX now and i am in a big confusion now. I heard that the mails from the USICS will not be forwarded to any new address by the USPS. If i would want to change my address with the USCIS now will it be a good move or is there any other alternative that you all could suggest me...Please advice me on this issue and help me out of this situation.
Krishna.
You can actually call IO at USCIS and get address updated if you are in the system.
No comments:
Post a Comment