satishku_2000
02-08 04:18 PM
Guys
Any one got a chance to look at the statistics of BECS, I read only 33% of the applications are certified so far . I think its a good thing ..
Any one got a chance to look at the statistics of BECS, I read only 33% of the applications are certified so far . I think its a good thing ..
wallpaper Josh Peck, Josh Hutcherson
gg10004
03-17 11:38 PM
Just a question. Why would you file jointly if your wife doesn't work (i.e. doesn't have SSN)?
--- if you really meant to ask---
Simple answer - More standard deduction with one more dependant as wife
IRS made it mandatory to use SSN because illegal immigrants use ITIN to file taxes. This affected the legal immigrants also where ITIN is used in case of dependants who dont have work visa. If you are not legally eligible to work, you dont get SSN.
The two options left for legal immigrants are -
File separate returns one for self with ssn and another for wife using ITIN and calim one stimulus rebate for 600$
but then you get single standard deduction and your AGI is more that affects your federal and state tax.
If you do the math, its better to file a joint return and forego the stimulus rebate.
There is a catch too, if wife later gets EAD and thus SSN, you can ammend your tax return and claim the stimuls rebate
--- if you really meant to ask---
Simple answer - More standard deduction with one more dependant as wife
IRS made it mandatory to use SSN because illegal immigrants use ITIN to file taxes. This affected the legal immigrants also where ITIN is used in case of dependants who dont have work visa. If you are not legally eligible to work, you dont get SSN.
The two options left for legal immigrants are -
File separate returns one for self with ssn and another for wife using ITIN and calim one stimulus rebate for 600$
but then you get single standard deduction and your AGI is more that affects your federal and state tax.
If you do the math, its better to file a joint return and forego the stimulus rebate.
There is a catch too, if wife later gets EAD and thus SSN, you can ammend your tax return and claim the stimuls rebate
Imm_Exploited
07-30 11:42 AM
USCIS - FAQ2 on I-485 Filing (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FAQ2.pdf) Could be of some Relief
rbhatia88
Some of the answers by USCIS to some questions on the FAQ2 could be of some relief to you.
Here are some that could be directly related to your situation:
Q22: What will be the receipt date for employment-based adjustment applications filed between July 2, 2007 – July 17, 2007?
A22: In accordance with standard procedure, USCIS will generate receipt notices for all properly filed employment-based adjustment applications based on the date the applications were physically received by USCIS.
Q26: How will USCIS treat aliens who fell out of valid nonimmigrant status between July 2, 2007 – July 16, 2007 as a direct result of the inability to file for employment-based adjustment during that period?
A26. USCIS has discretion to consider extraordinary circumstances that are beyond the alien’s control and may forgive a short gap in status for such aliens.
Just ensure that you have proof of delivery of I-485 to the USCIS.
Sincerely - IE
rbhatia88
Some of the answers by USCIS to some questions on the FAQ2 could be of some relief to you.
Here are some that could be directly related to your situation:
Q22: What will be the receipt date for employment-based adjustment applications filed between July 2, 2007 – July 17, 2007?
A22: In accordance with standard procedure, USCIS will generate receipt notices for all properly filed employment-based adjustment applications based on the date the applications were physically received by USCIS.
Q26: How will USCIS treat aliens who fell out of valid nonimmigrant status between July 2, 2007 – July 16, 2007 as a direct result of the inability to file for employment-based adjustment during that period?
A26. USCIS has discretion to consider extraordinary circumstances that are beyond the alien’s control and may forgive a short gap in status for such aliens.
Just ensure that you have proof of delivery of I-485 to the USCIS.
Sincerely - IE
2011 Drake Bell and Josh Peck,
PKV4voice
09-16 08:30 PM
Unable to participate due to prior commitments (travelling in Mid West)
Contributed $200
Google Order # 332995467726386
Appreciate IV's initiative. Thanks a ton.
Contributed $200
Google Order # 332995467726386
Appreciate IV's initiative. Thanks a ton.
more...
wandmaker
05-22 10:09 PM
^^^^^^
needhelp!
09-10 03:28 PM
asharda rainy Jitamitra kumhyd2 ngaheer sanjay sureddy
more...
anantc
09-03 10:56 AM
Arrived in the US in Sep 1999
Started the GC process in Apr 2003.
Labor filed in Oct 2003
Waiting... :D
Started the GC process in Apr 2003.
Labor filed in Oct 2003
Waiting... :D
2010 josh peck hot. omg so hot.
Saralayar
08-11 03:09 PM
Can someone start a new thread with poll for the July 17th - Aug 17th filers?. I am not able to start a new thread.
more...
rahul98
07-20 04:35 PM
Maybe some has asked this question before...why was this not posted on IV ? It would have helped to have everyone's focus on this rather than the youtube and thank you cards campaign.
Rahul
Rahul
hair Drake+ell+car+accident
vayumahesh
11-30 01:54 PM
Just noticed there is an update on LUD on my previous EAD (not the current one). Not sure what that means though. Still waiting for response after sending interfiling letter.
more...
indio0617
03-16 10:13 AM
Got through this time. Same answer... that they will resolve it soon.
hot drake josh anddrake ell
abhishek101
09-08 11:38 AM
Similar law exists in UK if you are on workpermit for 5 years you automatically get Permanent residency.
more...
house Actor Josh Peck arrives at the
chanduv23
11-20 08:54 PM
I can understand attorney's thinking: H1B is good to have. If there is no reason for its revocation (i.e applicant is still working for H1 sponsor), then there is some level of protection for you. Another aspect is a legal status. While EAD gives you an opportunity to continue work legally if I-485 is denied, it does not protect your legal status (accumulate more than 180 days of unlawful presence and you lose eligibility to adjust status and are a subject to re-entry ban). Having H1B gives you a protection in this case. But if H1B is revoked, I-485 is denied and a person does not have EAD, then there is no escape. It's nice to have both, but maintaining EAD should be the priority.
Typically, if someone is doing a AC21 jump + H1b transfer, it means that the h1b gets transferred to the new employer and the new employer is the h1b petitioner. If the h1b is based on an approved 140 - the beneficiary gets it for 3 years and unless the person is completing his 3 years with the new employer when the 140 revoke happens, the h1b is still valid unless the new employer decides he will cancel it or the person is layed off and thats when the person is in deep trouble because he/she does not have EAD. Correct me if I am wrong. H1b revocation by ex employer may not affect the candidate because candidate already did a transfer
Typically, if someone is doing a AC21 jump + H1b transfer, it means that the h1b gets transferred to the new employer and the new employer is the h1b petitioner. If the h1b is based on an approved 140 - the beneficiary gets it for 3 years and unless the person is completing his 3 years with the new employer when the 140 revoke happens, the h1b is still valid unless the new employer decides he will cancel it or the person is layed off and thats when the person is in deep trouble because he/she does not have EAD. Correct me if I am wrong. H1b revocation by ex employer may not affect the candidate because candidate already did a transfer
tattoo HOT-is-ilegal-josh-peck-4.
GCard_Dream
07-06 01:59 PM
Are you guys digging this story as well .. or just talking about it.
Please go ahead and digg it.
Please go ahead and digg it.
more...
pictures MIRANDA COSGROVE AND DRAKE
xyzgc
02-09 07:05 AM
Wow, there you go! How come it becomes not 'stupid' when a girl spends husband's money to support her parents?
This, effectively, means that if the girl stops earning for any reason such as pregnancy or is unable to earn, she immediately forfeits the right to send money to her parents. This is the most illogical statement I have ever heard.
And it also means that for any reason, if a girl remains a house wife, she has no right to send any money to the parents like you, as the earning member, do.
This is the very strange attitude that may get a marriage in trouble.
Why shouldn't a husband send money to his parents from his earnings? The husband and wife can talk about it and based on circumstances take a decision.
BUT if the girl takes for granted her rights to spend for her parents from husband's earnings, then it becomes an issue!
Did I even say husband shouldn't send money to his parents from his earnings?
But shouldn't that be also need-based? How come it is the right of the husband to send any amount of money he wants to his parents without the wife complaining and how come it becomes a case of "taking for granted" when a non-earning wife wants to send money to her folks in need? This is a hypothetical situation and nothing to do with OP's case.
And then how is it we, husbands, are the first ones to start complaining when our wives don't get a share of our in-laws property following their demise?
And tell me then, following a divorce why are there laws which require you to split your net worth evenly with your non-working ex-wife? Is that acceptable to you then or you want to put forth an argument that "hey, we don't have a child and she is no longer my wife and so I am not obligated to give her a dime"
This, effectively, means that if the girl stops earning for any reason such as pregnancy or is unable to earn, she immediately forfeits the right to send money to her parents. This is the most illogical statement I have ever heard.
And it also means that for any reason, if a girl remains a house wife, she has no right to send any money to the parents like you, as the earning member, do.
This is the very strange attitude that may get a marriage in trouble.
Why shouldn't a husband send money to his parents from his earnings? The husband and wife can talk about it and based on circumstances take a decision.
BUT if the girl takes for granted her rights to spend for her parents from husband's earnings, then it becomes an issue!
Did I even say husband shouldn't send money to his parents from his earnings?
But shouldn't that be also need-based? How come it is the right of the husband to send any amount of money he wants to his parents without the wife complaining and how come it becomes a case of "taking for granted" when a non-earning wife wants to send money to her folks in need? This is a hypothetical situation and nothing to do with OP's case.
And then how is it we, husbands, are the first ones to start complaining when our wives don't get a share of our in-laws property following their demise?
And tell me then, following a divorce why are there laws which require you to split your net worth evenly with your non-working ex-wife? Is that acceptable to you then or you want to put forth an argument that "hey, we don't have a child and she is no longer my wife and so I am not obligated to give her a dime"
dresses Josh Peck or Drake Bell
titu1972
03-17 09:19 PM
I got a mail from IRS Today mentioning the eligibility criteria for Stimulus package. Only Primary person who filed Tax Return(may be single or jointly)
is eligible to get refund of $600 for single and $1200 if file jointly. Dependant cannot claim the package.
For each child additional $300.
is eligible to get refund of $600 for single and $1200 if file jointly. Dependant cannot claim the package.
For each child additional $300.
more...
makeup Actors Drake Bell and Josh
lalithkx
09-05 08:07 PM
I agree with the above posts, they are stealing money by having stupid charges. Why do you need to charge a customer Rs.400 for changing his account password. It is absolutely ridiculous! Compare that to a bank in US, you just go online and change the password. Also, they have 2 passwords one called Account password to login to the account and another called Transaction password for making any transactions. So the more number of passwords you have the more you tend to forget either of them and they can charge you Rs.400 for each password reset!:mad:
I had the same experience with ICICI for password change. They wanted 1% fees for Loan sanction
I had the same experience with ICICI for password change. They wanted 1% fees for Loan sanction
girlfriend drake startfanpop Fight ou
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
hairstyles Drake+ell+car+accident+
avis
09-01 01:38 PM
Priority date December 2002. EB3. Still waiting and waiting....
End is not yet in sight.
End is not yet in sight.
sparklinks
08-10 12:58 PM
no receipts for me too :( r Williams 7:55am 07/02
i m going go drinking to drown my sorrows soon.
R Williams 7:55am 07/02, NO receipt either...:confused:
i m going go drinking to drown my sorrows soon.
R Williams 7:55am 07/02, NO receipt either...:confused:
Libra
09-10 07:47 PM
thanks cirigadi, gctoget, rajamanikannan, hemants for your contribution. please attend rally too, we need to show big numbers at rally.
No comments:
Post a Comment