max714
02-22 08:34 PM
I am a July filer and have the option of working for a reputable company as expert consultant for 6 months (initial offer). Yates memo indicates that self-employment is possible. Here is my question: Do we need to register a company to be considered self-employed? As a consultant you may not have a customer for while. Isn't it better to register a company if you want to claim self employment? What are the pros and cons of registering a company?
wallpaper platoon#39;s charlie sheen
agoodman001
08-16 02:00 PM
I am on H1 and working at client place, my parents visited few months back. Some of my friends(who are at client place) in-laws/parents also visited. As long as you produce documents specified, there wont be any prblm with visitor visa.
GCwaitforever
11-18 02:07 PM
Sorry bro/sis.
Center for Immigration studies is a partisan organization with the ultimate goal of reducing immigration to this country. They spin each and every analysis to the conclusion that current immigration levels are bad for US economy. They are not our friends.
Center for Immigration studies is a partisan organization with the ultimate goal of reducing immigration to this country. They spin each and every analysis to the conclusion that current immigration levels are bad for US economy. They are not our friends.
2011 Platoon Chris Taylor Charlie
GCwaitforever
03-20 05:25 PM
I sent a howler to some Chinese friends and Tamil/Telugu/Malayalam/Kannada groups and . :) Let the owls return.
more...
Templarian
09-21 03:41 PM
:thumb:
I can has grammar now?
http://kirupa.templarian.com/smh.gif
I can has grammar now?
http://kirupa.templarian.com/smh.gif
krish2005
08-18 12:46 PM
This is not tied to immigration but to the savings of some sort...
If this is a dupe post - please ignore.
This should certainly help if the deal is inked and save H1 and L1 holders some money.
PF rules may be tightened to squeeze US expats - Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/PF-rules-may-be-tightened-to-squeeze-US-expats/Article1-588281.aspx)
Excerpt:
If India and the US ink the deal, tens of thousands of Indians working in the US on H1B or L1 visas need not contribute to the US social security schemes and US expatriates need not contribute to an Indian provident fund.
If this is a dupe post - please ignore.
This should certainly help if the deal is inked and save H1 and L1 holders some money.
PF rules may be tightened to squeeze US expats - Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/PF-rules-may-be-tightened-to-squeeze-US-expats/Article1-588281.aspx)
Excerpt:
If India and the US ink the deal, tens of thousands of Indians working in the US on H1B or L1 visas need not contribute to the US social security schemes and US expatriates need not contribute to an Indian provident fund.
more...
smartboy75
04-15 11:05 AM
Hey folks
Am not sure if anyone has already posted this info....sorry if duplicate thread
Posting it for the benifit of everyone
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179181,00.html
Njoy
Am not sure if anyone has already posted this info....sorry if duplicate thread
Posting it for the benifit of everyone
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179181,00.html
Njoy
2010 Charlie Sheen Quotes:
amsgc
07-31 09:26 AM
Hi,
My H-1 was approved in 2004 by the Texas Service Center. According to the instructions for I-539, for change of status to H4, it says:
"If The principal’s petition and change of status request are approved, mail form I-539 to the same Service Center that approved the principal’s I-129 and change of status or extension application. Include a copy of the principal’s approval notice."
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2eede945cbc21110VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
- Could someone who has filed I-539 recently please respond?
- What is the correct address (P.O.Box etc) for TSC, for I-539
- Can the I-539 be sent to the physical address using private courier?
Thanks,
Ams
My H-1 was approved in 2004 by the Texas Service Center. According to the instructions for I-539, for change of status to H4, it says:
"If The principal’s petition and change of status request are approved, mail form I-539 to the same Service Center that approved the principal’s I-129 and change of status or extension application. Include a copy of the principal’s approval notice."
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2eede945cbc21110VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
- Could someone who has filed I-539 recently please respond?
- What is the correct address (P.O.Box etc) for TSC, for I-539
- Can the I-539 be sent to the physical address using private courier?
Thanks,
Ams
more...
skyman
08-30 11:05 PM
Hi friends,
I completed my Masters degree this May 08 and started working on opt for a company A. Meanwhile another company B filed for my H1 and it got approved. But i would now like to continue working for my current company A.
1. On what status would i be on October 1?
2. Could i continue working for Company A on my OPT even after October 1?
thanks
I completed my Masters degree this May 08 and started working on opt for a company A. Meanwhile another company B filed for my H1 and it got approved. But i would now like to continue working for my current company A.
1. On what status would i be on October 1?
2. Could i continue working for Company A on my OPT even after October 1?
thanks
hair Charlie Sheen back in Platoon
RonWeisly
08-09 06:51 PM
Hi,
I believe someone already asked a similar question but I just want to describe my exact situation:
- My LC (EB3) got approved on July 2007, PD is March 2007 - Company A
- My I-140 and I-485 were filed concurrently on July 2007 - Company A
- I work as a contractor and my client (Company B) is offering me a full-time job and would like me to join on Sept 2007
- I still have 4 years on my H1B
With the assumption that my current employer (Company A) will give full cooperation on my current GC process, if I join company B on H1B transfer now, can I possibly invoke AC21 later after my I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days?
I'll greatly appreciate any comments.
I believe someone already asked a similar question but I just want to describe my exact situation:
- My LC (EB3) got approved on July 2007, PD is March 2007 - Company A
- My I-140 and I-485 were filed concurrently on July 2007 - Company A
- I work as a contractor and my client (Company B) is offering me a full-time job and would like me to join on Sept 2007
- I still have 4 years on my H1B
With the assumption that my current employer (Company A) will give full cooperation on my current GC process, if I join company B on H1B transfer now, can I possibly invoke AC21 later after my I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days?
I'll greatly appreciate any comments.
more...
Macaca
06-22 06:55 AM
Senate Passes Energy Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html?hpid=topnews) Democrats Prevail; Mileage Standard Would Be Raised By Sholnn Freeman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sholnn+freeman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, June 22, 2007
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
hot Platoon. Charlie Sheen (Chris)
sunandoghosh
08-30 08:53 AM
thanks for confirmation...i got so so worried
more...
house Charlie Sheen, Photo by Mark
jack
10-22 07:52 PM
Hello everyone,
I obtained my F1 visa in Aug,2001 for 5 years and I initially came here for M.S. I have continued for PhD in 2003 and visited India every two years. My F1 expired in Jul,2006 but my I-20 is valid until Dec,2008.The real problem is that I have applied for Canadian PR this Oct and expecting to get it by Oct,2008.
Once I get my PR, I have to go to Canada for Visa stamping and my questions are related to this:
1) Since my F1 expired, Can I come back to US after PR stamping, without needing an F1 visa.?
2) Is it advisable to get my F1 visa stamping in India or Canada next year i.e in Oct 2008, or would it be too late? (since that would be two years after visa expiry).
PS: I wanted to get my F1 stamping only if it were necessary to go to India.
Any suggestions would help me a lot and thanks so much in advance.
I obtained my F1 visa in Aug,2001 for 5 years and I initially came here for M.S. I have continued for PhD in 2003 and visited India every two years. My F1 expired in Jul,2006 but my I-20 is valid until Dec,2008.The real problem is that I have applied for Canadian PR this Oct and expecting to get it by Oct,2008.
Once I get my PR, I have to go to Canada for Visa stamping and my questions are related to this:
1) Since my F1 expired, Can I come back to US after PR stamping, without needing an F1 visa.?
2) Is it advisable to get my F1 visa stamping in India or Canada next year i.e in Oct 2008, or would it be too late? (since that would be two years after visa expiry).
PS: I wanted to get my F1 stamping only if it were necessary to go to India.
Any suggestions would help me a lot and thanks so much in advance.
tattoo Charlie Sheen and Brooke
Iammontoya
04-11 03:28 PM
it is possible (answering a question you directed towards Kirupa)
shift click on the objects you would like to group. Click on arrange and group. To undo it.. click on Arrange (ungroup).
That should do it.
Good luck!
shift click on the objects you would like to group. Click on arrange and group. To undo it.. click on Arrange (ungroup).
That should do it.
Good luck!
more...
pictures Charlie Sheen arrested (pic:
sargon
10-20 09:01 PM
^^^^
dresses Taylor (Charlie Sheen) 12
H4_losing_hope
02-05 09:34 PM
Hi Folks,
Just wanted to remind members we only have 4 days left until the deadline for the letter campaign for Administration Fixes!!! Please print out some copies of the template # 1 for example, and collect signatures and addresses from your friends and colleagues. They will support you and their signature can really help our numbers. We need big numbers if we are going to make an impact.
I read we have 26,000 members -it would be something wonderful if everyone took 5 minutes to do this. At the very least, do it for yourself and your family. I don't want us to fail this effort.
Just wanted to remind members we only have 4 days left until the deadline for the letter campaign for Administration Fixes!!! Please print out some copies of the template # 1 for example, and collect signatures and addresses from your friends and colleagues. They will support you and their signature can really help our numbers. We need big numbers if we are going to make an impact.
I read we have 26,000 members -it would be something wonderful if everyone took 5 minutes to do this. At the very least, do it for yourself and your family. I don't want us to fail this effort.
more...
makeup Willem Dafoe, Charlie Sheen
cobweb87
08-27 02:34 PM
Hello there,
I am new to this forum.
Is there any difference in timline to file a GC for sibling in "Family member of a permanent resident in a preference category" AND "Family Member of a U.S. Citizen in a Preference Category".
I am a GC holder right now and would like know, if I should wait to become Citizen or file GC for my sibling now.
thanks a lot for any suggestions.
Cobweb
I am new to this forum.
Is there any difference in timline to file a GC for sibling in "Family member of a permanent resident in a preference category" AND "Family Member of a U.S. Citizen in a Preference Category".
I am a GC holder right now and would like know, if I should wait to become Citizen or file GC for my sibling now.
thanks a lot for any suggestions.
Cobweb
girlfriend Charlie Sheen, Johnny Depp
webm
04-17 04:29 PM
Nope,nothing as such going on for EAD new/renewals...
hairstyles Charlie Sheen, Platoon
Pallavi79
06-16 11:50 AM
TSC 485 processing date says Aug 17,2007.
Does it mean, they reviewed almost all cases before Aug 16,2007?
My receipt date is Aug 13,2007. Notice date is Oct 10,2007.
So wondering whether they touched my case or still not?
Does it mean, they reviewed almost all cases before Aug 16,2007?
My receipt date is Aug 13,2007. Notice date is Oct 10,2007.
So wondering whether they touched my case or still not?
raviram1980
03-12 08:43 PM
Hi All,
I went for visa interview in December, but my case was stuck because of administrative processing. I came back on Advance parole. I have the following questions.
1. Can I sponsor my parents visitor visa without any issue? Will the consulate quiz them/stop them because of my H-1 admin processing
2. Also is my admin processing still going on? and can I stamp my H-1 visa in the future after my case is cleared from admin processing.
Thanks in advance
I went for visa interview in December, but my case was stuck because of administrative processing. I came back on Advance parole. I have the following questions.
1. Can I sponsor my parents visitor visa without any issue? Will the consulate quiz them/stop them because of my H-1 admin processing
2. Also is my admin processing still going on? and can I stamp my H-1 visa in the future after my case is cleared from admin processing.
Thanks in advance
texas1235
12-04 02:27 PM
Hi All,
I have two questions as below:
1) My company announced that it was acquired by another company and the deal will be closed in early 2008.
My I140 priority date is Sept 21,2007 in EB2 in Texas SC. What should I be doing assuming my I140 will be approved in 6 months time, ie March 2008.
2)Also, my company is a Federal contractor working with the Federal organisation. All employees working for this contractor will always work for this Federal organisation no matter who the contractor is.In other words, the client remains same, but contractor changes.So if this Federal organisation gives this contract to any other comapny other than I am working with, how will my I140 processing be affected.
I have two questions as below:
1) My company announced that it was acquired by another company and the deal will be closed in early 2008.
My I140 priority date is Sept 21,2007 in EB2 in Texas SC. What should I be doing assuming my I140 will be approved in 6 months time, ie March 2008.
2)Also, my company is a Federal contractor working with the Federal organisation. All employees working for this contractor will always work for this Federal organisation no matter who the contractor is.In other words, the client remains same, but contractor changes.So if this Federal organisation gives this contract to any other comapny other than I am working with, how will my I140 processing be affected.
No comments:
Post a Comment