Winner
02-18 11:57 AM
Hello IVans,
My employer did not pay for I485 expenses (USCIS fees, Lawyer expenses and Medical exam expenses). I paid all these expenses out of my pocket. Today one of my friends told me that these expenses could qualify as tax-deductible expenses. I have my doubts, but want to get you thoughts.
Thanks.
My employer did not pay for I485 expenses (USCIS fees, Lawyer expenses and Medical exam expenses). I paid all these expenses out of my pocket. Today one of my friends told me that these expenses could qualify as tax-deductible expenses. I have my doubts, but want to get you thoughts.
Thanks.
grupak
03-24 12:44 PM
Windows Media: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.asx
Real Audio: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.ram
MP3: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.m3u
Mark Bartosik, Software Engineer; Member, Immigration Voice
Good interview Mark!
Real Audio: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.ram
MP3: http://wamu.org/audio/wamu.m3u
Mark Bartosik, Software Engineer; Member, Immigration Voice
Good interview Mark!
krishnam70
03-13 05:23 PM
but i asked this question to find the legality of this issue before reporting someone to the USCIS that i know is doing this.I just used I instead of someone in my thread to start the discussion.
Who do i complain to in this case?
Vow quite a turnaround. First you say its you who want to do it and when you get the heat you claim otherwise.
Either way this is pure 'FRAUD' . If you are the person who is doing it USCIS will have ways to track it and it will come back during your Naturalization or at any time when u enter the country. If you are just trying to report this to authorities you can do so at your state DOL or write a letter to USCIS with details if you have it.
- cheers
kris
Who do i complain to in this case?
Vow quite a turnaround. First you say its you who want to do it and when you get the heat you claim otherwise.
Either way this is pure 'FRAUD' . If you are the person who is doing it USCIS will have ways to track it and it will come back during your Naturalization or at any time when u enter the country. If you are just trying to report this to authorities you can do so at your state DOL or write a letter to USCIS with details if you have it.
- cheers
kris
pd052009
08-20 02:40 PM
Ron says, The USCIS teleconference concerning implementation of PL 111-230 provided the following information:
* The new tax DOES NOT apply to extensions or amendments
This will help the people like me who are stuck in GC process...
* The new tax DOES NOT apply to extensions or amendments
This will help the people like me who are stuck in GC process...
more...
Joozz
09-21 09:50 AM
Or may be the fact that they gave me new visa in the embassy means that everything fine with that extension?
knowDOL
08-24 10:32 AM
These may be the GC visas issued from consulates in India. THere is one more list for AOS and the numbers for India for 2005 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd pref employment category are as follows.
6,336
16,687
23,250
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf
I dunno from where they come upwith number. From the same site look at this link
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableI.pdf - This is given at foreign out post.
EB - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
43129 39289 29712 28624 21290
and compare with
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableII.pdf
and compare with below data.
6,336
16,687
23,250
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf
I dunno from where they come upwith number. From the same site look at this link
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableI.pdf - This is given at foreign out post.
EB - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
43129 39289 29712 28624 21290
and compare with
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableII.pdf
and compare with below data.
more...
lskreddy
11-10 02:58 PM
The answer is no, she cannot volunteer. Community service is probably all one can do but any others that potentially can be perceived as displacement of US worker is certainly a no-no. In the proposed case, it can be construed as such.
Having said all this, its tough to interpret what actually is and is not true.
Having said all this, its tough to interpret what actually is and is not true.
Ann Ruben
04-23 10:48 AM
If you are subject to the two-year home residence requirement, you cannot be granted H-1 status until a 212(e) waiver is granted. However, your employer can file an H-1 petition for you now. Once the petition is approved, AND the waiver is granted, you can either file with USCIS for a change of status, or you can apply for an H-1 visa abroad.
more...
sreenivas11
10-03 05:10 PM
Now they are implementing in VA State too
sangeethak31
07-16 08:49 PM
Thanks all the reponses.....:)
Sangeetha K
Sangeetha K
more...
immigrationvoice1
02-27 01:08 PM
Hope this documents appears in the sites run by the "anti-employment based immigrants" supporters.
waitnwatch
04-21 02:37 PM
It is generally a good idea to go to any CBP and get the date put in. It is a pretty easy process. When the CBP folks say that an exit in 6 months in fine I guess they are correct in the sense that you have to stay illegally for over 180 days to be barred from reentry.
Anyway this should be pretty easy except that you have to find the time to go to your nearest international airport. For some it could be a 4 hour + drive!
Good luck
Anyway this should be pretty easy except that you have to find the time to go to your nearest international airport. For some it could be a 4 hour + drive!
Good luck
more...
Ann Ruben
05-13 03:41 PM
two months is a reasonable estimate---but you could request premium processing and pay an extra $1000 filing fee for a decision within 15 days.
xela
06-10 12:51 PM
It s been a while since i have said anything here, and mostly because it seems this has become a "everyones racist against indians" and everyone else isnt important kind of talk.
while I understand most here are from India, please refrain from putting the ROW people down and make it sound like we have no wait at all. i ve been here since 2000 and started my green card process in 2003. I m just as frustrated, but I refrain from coming here and telling everyone how ROW should get all the good stuff and the rest can go to ....
:(:confused:
we should fax/email letters to lawmakers/senators from every angle. One way of doing this would be drafting a letter with the calculation and a quote " Just for Indians, and chinese nationality for rest of the world = 1year"
We should be attacking in each and every angle so they get used to reading our issues and would come with a solution.
MAKE A NOISE
while I understand most here are from India, please refrain from putting the ROW people down and make it sound like we have no wait at all. i ve been here since 2000 and started my green card process in 2003. I m just as frustrated, but I refrain from coming here and telling everyone how ROW should get all the good stuff and the rest can go to ....
:(:confused:
we should fax/email letters to lawmakers/senators from every angle. One way of doing this would be drafting a letter with the calculation and a quote " Just for Indians, and chinese nationality for rest of the world = 1year"
We should be attacking in each and every angle so they get used to reading our issues and would come with a solution.
MAKE A NOISE
more...
vivekm1309
08-13 01:11 AM
looks like vldrao got his GC and took a hike ;)
Vdlrao may be helping DOS/USCIS to finalise the Visa Bulletin for September, must have been invited by Michael Chertoff seeing his grip on the visa numbers...:p
Vdlrao may be helping DOS/USCIS to finalise the Visa Bulletin for September, must have been invited by Michael Chertoff seeing his grip on the visa numbers...:p
mhathi
10-27 07:12 AM
Exact same letter for me as well!
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
anantken
07-21 09:32 AM
I am also having the same case... my PD is May 2006. I filed for I-485 in July 2007. Until today I haven't received the FP Notice.. Last yr I have received AP, EAD but no FP yet..
Someone on this website mentioned that EAD Renewal should trigger FP notice. In June 2008 I have applied for EAD Renewal.. Online status shows that EAD card is in production. But Still no FP notice.
I went to local office too.. They were of no help. They said that FP notice should initiate from USCIS Service Center.
Also I have done 2 SRs.. 1st one was done in Nov 07. Still Nobody is assigned to my case.
I dont know what to do now. my service center is TSC.
Someone on this website mentioned that EAD Renewal should trigger FP notice. In June 2008 I have applied for EAD Renewal.. Online status shows that EAD card is in production. But Still no FP notice.
I went to local office too.. They were of no help. They said that FP notice should initiate from USCIS Service Center.
Also I have done 2 SRs.. 1st one was done in Nov 07. Still Nobody is assigned to my case.
I dont know what to do now. my service center is TSC.
kondur_007
10-30 12:17 PM
Thanks for your reply it was helpful.
BUt can any one tell me do we have to be on payroll for at least 6 months after you get Gc or can we on and off payroll and still be with the same employer for what ever length of time we stick to the same employer who filed GC..
Srh1: Please read my comments in the above two threads (thread links posted by bluez). I tried to summarize everything there.
As far as your above question is concerned: You will be just fine even if you are on and off the payroll (especially if the empolyer does not have the project for some time...meaning that on and off was triggerred by the employer); because it still shows YOUR intention to stay with the employer.
Feel free to ask any further questions (after going through above two threads) if you need any further info...I am not a lawyer but I will be happy to share what I know.
Good Luck.
BUt can any one tell me do we have to be on payroll for at least 6 months after you get Gc or can we on and off payroll and still be with the same employer for what ever length of time we stick to the same employer who filed GC..
Srh1: Please read my comments in the above two threads (thread links posted by bluez). I tried to summarize everything there.
As far as your above question is concerned: You will be just fine even if you are on and off the payroll (especially if the empolyer does not have the project for some time...meaning that on and off was triggerred by the employer); because it still shows YOUR intention to stay with the employer.
Feel free to ask any further questions (after going through above two threads) if you need any further info...I am not a lawyer but I will be happy to share what I know.
Good Luck.
eb3retro
06-17 05:51 AM
Years and years of waiting? no kidding. Look at my priority date. And there are people waiting before me. You used a pre-approved labor and have been waiting in the GC queue from what 2006? Dude, in today's world, a reasonable wait for eb3-is anywhere between 10-15 years and eb2 is atleast 5-6 years. I am not mad that you used a pre-approved labor, though in my personal opinion, its a taboo. I am just saying you are lucky enough that you may get your green card much quickly than people like us who have been waiting atleast 8-10 years and trust me, people like your case, usually should be happy.
Well, I understand that. But, when the stars line up finally, I don't want to see my application having problems because I used a pre-approved labor.
it would be encouraging to hear from folks who got their GC and used pre-approved labor. Years and years of wait should yield something, and just not plain disappointment.
Well, I understand that. But, when the stars line up finally, I don't want to see my application having problems because I used a pre-approved labor.
it would be encouraging to hear from folks who got their GC and used pre-approved labor. Years and years of wait should yield something, and just not plain disappointment.
rani77
08-30 10:53 AM
Isnt recording conversations without the consent illegal? :confused:
This may be correct but , if you sent the tape of employer abusing /cursing its own employees to DOL along with other allegations , they might well pay special attention and scrutinize him or his company thoroghly.
This may be correct but , if you sent the tape of employer abusing /cursing its own employees to DOL along with other allegations , they might well pay special attention and scrutinize him or his company thoroghly.
No comments:
Post a Comment