test101
07-06 05:46 PM
Ok here I go again in this Chicken and Egg situation......
Now that someone filed a lawsuit to invalidate the July VB, which BTW is still CURRENT.......it could invalidate the CURRENT sttatus....of all Eb categories....precisely what DOS USCIS wants....
My head is spinning.......Beer anyone?
join the club...news make no sence at all.
Now that someone filed a lawsuit to invalidate the July VB, which BTW is still CURRENT.......it could invalidate the CURRENT sttatus....of all Eb categories....precisely what DOS USCIS wants....
My head is spinning.......Beer anyone?
join the club...news make no sence at all.
wallpaper osama bin laden dead
gc_maine2
04-04 10:27 AM
:confused::confused:
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
Very good info, thanks for the posting. BUt its still not clear whether the spouse who is on EAD and does not work at all or for that matter 6 months in a given year, will she/he be eligible for setting up a S -corp??
Thanks
sree
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
Very good info, thanks for the posting. BUt its still not clear whether the spouse who is on EAD and does not work at all or for that matter 6 months in a given year, will she/he be eligible for setting up a S -corp??
Thanks
sree
abhidos37
08-21 02:48 PM
Last week I went to Trenton with H1 extension receipt (original), letter from employer, but in vain. They need approved docs. Luckily this week I got the H1 extended and today I carried the original approved H1 I-797A and got the DL extended. I got only 2 years H1/DL extension after 6 year completion with I-140 approved and 485 in progress. Fyi
2011 PBS NewsHour Claims Tupac
qualified_trash
05-31 01:51 PM
Fermat's Last Theorem will be proved before anyone can come up with an explanation for the functioning of the BECs.
more...
susie
07-15 11:19 AM
APPENDIX: REFORM SOLUTIONS
The Need for a Compassionate Visa
A compassionate visa is immediately required for reasons of humanity and dignity. Currently, because of the technicalities of US immigration laws many families torn apart are also subject to more degrading treatment at times of severe illness. Any provision should allow for the following:
* US residents, including those who are landlocked, to leave the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons;
* Non-US residents to enter the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons on a nonimmigrant basis;
* Evidence of immigrant intent should not prevent a person receiving a compassionate visa (such as an existing immigrant petition), unless an applicant makes it absolutely clear their intention is to immigrate and not to enter the USA on a temporary basis;
* To prevent abuse of such a visa, documentary evidence should be required as appropriate to ensure the application is made in good faith; and
* Compassionate visa processing should be dealt with the USCIS for US residents and in the consular office for non-US residents on an expedited basis if the imminent death of a close relative or funeral arrangements for a deceased relative is at issue.
INA, section 203(h) (as inserted by the Child States Protection Act, section 3) (8 U.S.C.1153(h))
Current Provision in INA, section 203(h)
�RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN ALIENS ARE CHILDREN-
(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall be made using--
(A) the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the alien's parent), but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability; reduced by
(B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition described in paragraph (2) was pending.
(2) PETITIONS DESCRIBED- The petition described in this paragraph is--
(A) with respect to a relationship described in subsection (a)(2)(A), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of an alien child under subsection (a)(2)(A); or
(B) with respect to an alien child who is a derivative beneficiary under subsection (d), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of the alien's parent under subsection (a), (b), or (c).
(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(4) and (d), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.''
Explanation
The references to �(a)(2)(A)� refers to principal beneficiaries and �(d)� refers to derivative beneficiaries. Subsection (1) provides a calculation to be considered a child under the family-based preference categories in light of USCIS processing delays. Subsection (2) describes the types of petition covered, ensuring beneficiaries, whether principal or derivative, are treated as a child under 21. Subsection (3) is another useful provision so that if the calculation of a beneficiary renders them over 21, they can retain the priority date of the original petition.
Problems
The language of this provision has rendered the provision open to ambiguity. Specifically, subsection (3) states the �alien�s petition shall be automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.� The problem is in relation to a derivative beneficiary (which is covered by this subsection) and is twofold. First, by its nature of being a derivative, a derivative beneficiary does not have an original application to speak of. Only the parent has a petition, which has caused the ambiguity. A Board of Immigration (BIA) decision did provide a common sense interpretation (Garcia, Maria T, File A79-001-587, June 16, 2006), but this is not binding on the USCIS and we know first hand that the USCIS has not consistently interpreted the provision in accordance with the BIA decision. Second, although the above mentioned BIA decision clarifies the provision also applies to F4 derivative beneficiaries, these petitions do not automatically convert. An F4 derivative beneficiary who ages still must wait for their Parent to file a new I-130 form, which is inconsistent with the language of the provision.
Another problem is if the new proposed points system is implemented, any person who ages out will no longer have a direct basis for immigration. Instead they would have to qualify under a points system, which is not guaranteed. This new system would make the above provisions redundant.
Solutions
The Need for a Compassionate Visa
A compassionate visa is immediately required for reasons of humanity and dignity. Currently, because of the technicalities of US immigration laws many families torn apart are also subject to more degrading treatment at times of severe illness. Any provision should allow for the following:
* US residents, including those who are landlocked, to leave the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons;
* Non-US residents to enter the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons on a nonimmigrant basis;
* Evidence of immigrant intent should not prevent a person receiving a compassionate visa (such as an existing immigrant petition), unless an applicant makes it absolutely clear their intention is to immigrate and not to enter the USA on a temporary basis;
* To prevent abuse of such a visa, documentary evidence should be required as appropriate to ensure the application is made in good faith; and
* Compassionate visa processing should be dealt with the USCIS for US residents and in the consular office for non-US residents on an expedited basis if the imminent death of a close relative or funeral arrangements for a deceased relative is at issue.
INA, section 203(h) (as inserted by the Child States Protection Act, section 3) (8 U.S.C.1153(h))
Current Provision in INA, section 203(h)
�RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN ALIENS ARE CHILDREN-
(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall be made using--
(A) the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the alien's parent), but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability; reduced by
(B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition described in paragraph (2) was pending.
(2) PETITIONS DESCRIBED- The petition described in this paragraph is--
(A) with respect to a relationship described in subsection (a)(2)(A), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of an alien child under subsection (a)(2)(A); or
(B) with respect to an alien child who is a derivative beneficiary under subsection (d), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of the alien's parent under subsection (a), (b), or (c).
(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(4) and (d), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.''
Explanation
The references to �(a)(2)(A)� refers to principal beneficiaries and �(d)� refers to derivative beneficiaries. Subsection (1) provides a calculation to be considered a child under the family-based preference categories in light of USCIS processing delays. Subsection (2) describes the types of petition covered, ensuring beneficiaries, whether principal or derivative, are treated as a child under 21. Subsection (3) is another useful provision so that if the calculation of a beneficiary renders them over 21, they can retain the priority date of the original petition.
Problems
The language of this provision has rendered the provision open to ambiguity. Specifically, subsection (3) states the �alien�s petition shall be automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.� The problem is in relation to a derivative beneficiary (which is covered by this subsection) and is twofold. First, by its nature of being a derivative, a derivative beneficiary does not have an original application to speak of. Only the parent has a petition, which has caused the ambiguity. A Board of Immigration (BIA) decision did provide a common sense interpretation (Garcia, Maria T, File A79-001-587, June 16, 2006), but this is not binding on the USCIS and we know first hand that the USCIS has not consistently interpreted the provision in accordance with the BIA decision. Second, although the above mentioned BIA decision clarifies the provision also applies to F4 derivative beneficiaries, these petitions do not automatically convert. An F4 derivative beneficiary who ages still must wait for their Parent to file a new I-130 form, which is inconsistent with the language of the provision.
Another problem is if the new proposed points system is implemented, any person who ages out will no longer have a direct basis for immigration. Instead they would have to qualify under a points system, which is not guaranteed. This new system would make the above provisions redundant.
Solutions
ak_2006
06-10 02:11 PM
That is the victory due to our admin fixes campaign. Your thousands of letters are working here.
We had received good feedback in our meetings with the administration.
The whole process of making final announcements is just too slow!!
We recently had another meeting to discuss one more admin fix item that has not been addressed yet and was part of our letters. Let us hope some decision comes out soon enough.
Thanks IV...thanks a lot.
We had received good feedback in our meetings with the administration.
The whole process of making final announcements is just too slow!!
We recently had another meeting to discuss one more admin fix item that has not been addressed yet and was part of our letters. Let us hope some decision comes out soon enough.
Thanks IV...thanks a lot.
more...
eb3_nepa
04-25 02:51 PM
I just wanted to bring it to the table...I think all of us have the right to voice our opinion & looks like we all have in the case. Now it should be upto the IV to take it or leave it. They are the leaders in this initative & let them make the final call on if it needs to be part of our agenda or not. Thanks
I agree with u rajeev. Ideas are always welcome, u never know what u may learn. Guys pls treat these threads as information and debate with enthusiasm. If you dont like something being said then tell the forum why u feel differently. Unless it is something totally ridiculous and off topic, we shud allow different ideas and discussions. If someone here feels it is a waste of time, then dont read that thread. :)
I agree with u rajeev. Ideas are always welcome, u never know what u may learn. Guys pls treat these threads as information and debate with enthusiasm. If you dont like something being said then tell the forum why u feel differently. Unless it is something totally ridiculous and off topic, we shud allow different ideas and discussions. If someone here feels it is a waste of time, then dont read that thread. :)
2010 Tupac – I Get Money Freestyle
obviously
09-14 05:33 PM
Looks like some people will need to get their PhD awards 'overturned'!
Gctest, Pallavi79 etc present a faulty hypothesis and case to mask and promote their myopic self-interests.
e.g. "Eb2 people are highly qualified compared to EB3" - Nowhere in US immigration-based legislation do we find such support for such a categorical assertion.
EB categories are EMPLOYMENT BASED - simply put, the requirements of the job determine EB category. Not whether one is smarter than the other.
There is another 10+ page thread on this very topic where this issue has been examined threadbare. Based on current law there is nothing illegal in this porting practice. Also, there is no place for 'ethical' categorization in the letter of the law.
Porting is a legally supported practice which is tied to LABOR and JOB requirements, not to one's esteemed sense of self worth.
There are numerous BUSINESS reasons why EB3 to EB2 porting is allowed. Why not focus on other forms of irrational immigration practice like the 7% quotas which amount to discrimination based on national origin?
Gctest, Pallavi79 etc present a faulty hypothesis and case to mask and promote their myopic self-interests.
e.g. "Eb2 people are highly qualified compared to EB3" - Nowhere in US immigration-based legislation do we find such support for such a categorical assertion.
EB categories are EMPLOYMENT BASED - simply put, the requirements of the job determine EB category. Not whether one is smarter than the other.
There is another 10+ page thread on this very topic where this issue has been examined threadbare. Based on current law there is nothing illegal in this porting practice. Also, there is no place for 'ethical' categorization in the letter of the law.
Porting is a legally supported practice which is tied to LABOR and JOB requirements, not to one's esteemed sense of self worth.
There are numerous BUSINESS reasons why EB3 to EB2 porting is allowed. Why not focus on other forms of irrational immigration practice like the 7% quotas which amount to discrimination based on national origin?
more...
sanju_dba
08-12 01:41 PM
doin the math...
200Million / 2k = 125k H1 employees that will fall in 50-50 rule?
Is that a realistic number? does body shop based consulting companies have that many employees?
If thats not right , that bill is just waste on their efforts ? huh?
200Million / 2k = 125k H1 employees that will fall in 50-50 rule?
Is that a realistic number? does body shop based consulting companies have that many employees?
If thats not right , that bill is just waste on their efforts ? huh?
hair This is the 2Pac Life Goes On
dvb123
09-13 06:35 PM
Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission. Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission. Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission.
more...
immm
07-19 01:21 PM
Cases will be processed on RD only. However approval is based on PD.
Due to heavy backlogs, it is automatically assured that the person with an older PD will get his GC first - even if he filed later.
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June, 2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Due to heavy backlogs, it is automatically assured that the person with an older PD will get his GC first - even if he filed later.
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June, 2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
hot Osama bin Ladenamp;#39;s compound
senthil1
07-06 01:34 PM
If they would not have approved 25k cases in 2 days still they could change the cut off date instead of making unavailable. In any case accepting 500k to 700k applications when Visa number not available might create more problems for USCIS than current mess. I think USCIS well aware of potential lawsuit as they got opposition for similar thing for EB3 other workers in June. There is no strong motive for Scandals as no one gets Finanicial benefit in USCIS or DOS. It needs to be seen how Courts will handle Adminstrative mess up. It is highly unlikely for courts to order USCIS to accept I485 even if they find violation of law. But if court considers the lawsuit it will be used to fix some of the issues in VB regulations
07/07/2007: State Department Record of EB Visa Number Authorization Involving Current Fiasco
According to the State Department, from October 1, 2006 through May 30, 2007, the USCIS requested and was authorized the total EB visa numbers of 66,426. Between June 1 and the first few days of July (?), the USCIS requested and was authorized over 60,000 EB visa numbers, in approximately one month. Since it has been made clear by the USCIS that during the last weekend of June 30 and July 1 (2 days) the USCIS approved 25,000 EB 485 applications, apparently over 40,000 visa numbers were requested and authorized before the weekend. Obviously the 60,000 plus cases must thus have been approved (?) in one month. Unconformed sources indicate that they processed and approved (?) a substantial number of application on Sunday, July 1, exhausting the EB numbers by July 1 and making the EB number unavailable not from July 1 but from July 2, 2007. It is interesting that even before the legal team initiate any discovery, the truth starts coming out of the cabinet a bit by bit.
07/07/2007: State Department Record of EB Visa Number Authorization Involving Current Fiasco
According to the State Department, from October 1, 2006 through May 30, 2007, the USCIS requested and was authorized the total EB visa numbers of 66,426. Between June 1 and the first few days of July (?), the USCIS requested and was authorized over 60,000 EB visa numbers, in approximately one month. Since it has been made clear by the USCIS that during the last weekend of June 30 and July 1 (2 days) the USCIS approved 25,000 EB 485 applications, apparently over 40,000 visa numbers were requested and authorized before the weekend. Obviously the 60,000 plus cases must thus have been approved (?) in one month. Unconformed sources indicate that they processed and approved (?) a substantial number of application on Sunday, July 1, exhausting the EB numbers by July 1 and making the EB number unavailable not from July 1 but from July 2, 2007. It is interesting that even before the legal team initiate any discovery, the truth starts coming out of the cabinet a bit by bit.
more...
house Osama bin Laden was
mayitbesoon
01-22 11:42 AM
does anyone know the timeframe of receipt date being processed for I-140 at TSC?
tattoo tattoo osama bin laden wives.
nirenjoshi
03-05 05:04 PM
ditto
Same here.. LUD=9/11/07
Same here.. LUD=9/11/07
more...
pictures Security team during Osama
Mouns
04-30 03:29 PM
OK so here it is, it will get 2 years before the backlogs due to the surge clear and to get back to normal... :mad:
dresses Soul Survivor Remix Feat. 2pac
jthomas
06-11 01:32 AM
Can we collectively find alternatives to move to other countries or going back home. I really don't think anything is going to happen for EB-I
we should collectively aim our approach to get SSA back and use up other benifits
J thomas
we should collectively aim our approach to get SSA back and use up other benifits
J thomas
more...
makeup osama bin laden fake.
ragz4u
03-15 08:59 AM
The link you have sent has listed Dirksen 224 as the venue on the top left, while in the middle it does say
The Executive Business Meeting scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary, for Wednesday, March 15, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., will take place in Dirksen Room 226.
There is no audio link for rroom 224 on capitolhearings.org....does anyone have any idea on where else can we can the audio from?
The Executive Business Meeting scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary, for Wednesday, March 15, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., will take place in Dirksen Room 226.
There is no audio link for rroom 224 on capitolhearings.org....does anyone have any idea on where else can we can the audio from?
girlfriend Osama bin Laden or Obama bin
chandsri81
04-25 02:16 PM
Thank you for your reassurance. I will Give the bank the I140 notice as well. I would hate to lostme the house after coming so far. Which bank did you go with?
hairstyles PAKISTAN-Osama Bin Laden#39;s
gcseeker2002
09-13 05:47 PM
What can we do about it ? I knew 3-4 guys who ported from EB3 to EB2 and even got their 485 approved because of this, during August.
johnnybhai
07-14 01:03 PM
Done!
chanduv23
06-01 03:37 PM
AILA (http://www.aila.org/) has an analysis of the immigration bill in an article "Top 5 Concerns Regarding Employment-Based Immigration in S. 1348":
there is a disturbing section in there:
Gaps in Green Card Availability � Immigrant visa petitions filed after May 15, 2007 on the basis of the current employment-based preference system will be rejected. � During the period between May 15, 2007 and the date the new merit based system is up and running (likely October 1, 2008), no new employment-based green card applications can be filed.
Any validity to this claim ?
If so, Does this mean that all I-485 that can be filled with the latest jump in priority date will be voided ?
Is this valid/legal ?
Maybe for new L/C filings .. can anyone look at this interpretation??
there is a disturbing section in there:
Gaps in Green Card Availability � Immigrant visa petitions filed after May 15, 2007 on the basis of the current employment-based preference system will be rejected. � During the period between May 15, 2007 and the date the new merit based system is up and running (likely October 1, 2008), no new employment-based green card applications can be filed.
Any validity to this claim ?
If so, Does this mean that all I-485 that can be filled with the latest jump in priority date will be voided ?
Is this valid/legal ?
Maybe for new L/C filings .. can anyone look at this interpretation??
No comments:
Post a Comment