Libra
09-10 04:55 PM
thank you.
I contributed whatever I can. Please contribute your part.
I contributed whatever I can. Please contribute your part.
wallpaper nicki minaj before young money
permfiling
09-16 03:06 PM
Thanks Milind for the inspiration. I too echo your words of success to the rally. I would request the state chapter leaders to get together on weekends once or twice a month to keep the momentum going.
Once again, I am very glad to see all members to echo a single voice through unity.
- Sunil R
SF Bay Area
Once again, I am very glad to see all members to echo a single voice through unity.
- Sunil R
SF Bay Area
skgs2000
04-30 05:02 PM
I called each one of them! And explained to let us file 485 immeditely after 140 approval! And talked about putting us in front of line before undocumented workers!
2011 Young Money – The Congress
eb3_nepa
07-14 03:37 PM
Hello everyone who contributed and will contribute. As an added favour, if you could update your signatures with a Link back to this thread, that would REALLY help matters.
more...
chanduv23
09-16 07:38 PM
Here you go another first time contributor. Just pulled the trigger for $100.
Google checkout order #768184044370985
And why r u not going to the rally
Google checkout order #768184044370985
And why r u not going to the rally
desi485
11-14 05:36 PM
It's call reseach topic.. We have to find some USCIS support documents for each case. We need some earlier USCIS decisions for each senarios/theories.
RG provided few supporting CIS rules in earlier post and seems logical. But not sure if RG or RK is right.
It's confusing indeed.
One of IV members 'lazycis' (he is a knowledgable & senior member) also mentioned this, which exactly matches with what RG said:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisions. I hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
RG provided few supporting CIS rules in earlier post and seems logical. But not sure if RG or RK is right.
It's confusing indeed.
One of IV members 'lazycis' (he is a knowledgable & senior member) also mentioned this, which exactly matches with what RG said:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisions. I hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
more...
mdmd10
07-23 03:56 PM
It is good to know someone with PD Aug 2004 in EB3 from India is getting approval. This gives me confidence that there are not many people waiting in line when the doors open in Oct 2007 with new quota.:)
PD for EB3 India in the June Visa Bulletin was 1st June 2003, meaning all those whose Priority Date on the LC on or before 01st June 2003 are eligible to apply for the next 2 stages.
If so, how could someone with a PD of Aug 2004 in EB3 India apply? Perhaps I am missing something.
PD for EB3 India in the June Visa Bulletin was 1st June 2003, meaning all those whose Priority Date on the LC on or before 01st June 2003 are eligible to apply for the next 2 stages.
If so, how could someone with a PD of Aug 2004 in EB3 India apply? Perhaps I am missing something.
2010 Lil#39; Wayne of Young Money,
Milind123
09-13 08:16 PM
I made my first time $100 contribution
Order Details - Sep 13, 2007 8:26 PM EDT
Google Order #573069996350097
Thank you IV for all your efforts. Keep up the good work.
Thanks
Subbbaiah
stalemate: A situation in which further action is blocked.
Subbbaiah, thank you so much for breaking the stalemate.
Need one final one for tonight.
Order Details - Sep 13, 2007 8:26 PM EDT
Google Order #573069996350097
Thank you IV for all your efforts. Keep up the good work.
Thanks
Subbbaiah
stalemate: A situation in which further action is blocked.
Subbbaiah, thank you so much for breaking the stalemate.
Need one final one for tonight.
more...
Edison99
02-03 02:55 PM
Congrats and good luck with your GC process !
9years: So finally did you have to send the interfiling request, or they approved it automatically.
- My EB2 140 got approved 2 weeks ago (with July 03 PD), but still no LUD on my 485.
- I placed a Service Request last week on my pending 485, which resulted in a soft LUD on my EB2 140 but nothing on 485.
I just wanted to know if you also had to send the interfiling request just like VayuMahesh.
Thanks,
9years: So finally did you have to send the interfiling request, or they approved it automatically.
- My EB2 140 got approved 2 weeks ago (with July 03 PD), but still no LUD on my 485.
- I placed a Service Request last week on my pending 485, which resulted in a soft LUD on my EB2 140 but nothing on 485.
I just wanted to know if you also had to send the interfiling request just like VayuMahesh.
Thanks,
hair Young Money – We Are Young
somegchuh
07-19 06:12 PM
Guys,
My understanding of the 1-485 processing is that there are several things that they do and checking the PD is the last thing they do to issue a GC.
The RD is the order that they follow until they find out if your PD is current. As for moving by RD, I have noticed that movement in NSC for the last 6 months has been really slow. And now, with so many more apps pouring in it can only get slower. But given the fact they are under the microscope right now they might just kick the tires and processing may pick up speed for a few months. This will benefit all the ppl who have been waiting for 485 approvals for 6+ months and their PD's are really (g)old. It might also benefit recent filers in getting EAD/AP sooner. But all of this going to be very political and can swing either way. So I wouldn't bet my money on either side and/or logic :D
My understanding of the 1-485 processing is that there are several things that they do and checking the PD is the last thing they do to issue a GC.
The RD is the order that they follow until they find out if your PD is current. As for moving by RD, I have noticed that movement in NSC for the last 6 months has been really slow. And now, with so many more apps pouring in it can only get slower. But given the fact they are under the microscope right now they might just kick the tires and processing may pick up speed for a few months. This will benefit all the ppl who have been waiting for 485 approvals for 6+ months and their PD's are really (g)old. It might also benefit recent filers in getting EAD/AP sooner. But all of this going to be very political and can swing either way. So I wouldn't bet my money on either side and/or logic :D
more...
tomatocup
07-20 12:47 PM
Core members may give us instructions on how to work out this important matter. Count me in if local assistance needed. Anybody else in DC area and willing to do something to help?
hot Young Money
skillet
06-22 11:27 AM
I am still hopeful that they will start processing quickly.. If not as everyone indicated take a chill pill!!!:)
more...
house download Young Money – The
gccube
07-18 08:41 PM
So, who ever gets to apply I-485 are in much better shape than people with PDs in 2002 or 2003 but do not file I-485 now.
REMEMBER, USCIS USUALLY DO NOT FOLLOW ORDER AND YOU HAVE TO BE VERY LUCKY OTHER THAN TURNING ALL THE RIGHT PAPER WORK.
Obviously if a guy with PD 2002 or 2003 does not apply there is no way he can get the AOS approved.
But do you mean a guy with PD '2007 May' applies now and a guy with PD '2000 March' (for some unkown reason) applies in 'Oct 2007'. Assuming that the PD cut off date retrogressed to '2000 March' then the guy with '2007 May' PD but with RD '2007 July' would be in a better shape than a guy with '2000 March' PD but with RD '2007 Oct'.
REMEMBER, USCIS USUALLY DO NOT FOLLOW ORDER AND YOU HAVE TO BE VERY LUCKY OTHER THAN TURNING ALL THE RIGHT PAPER WORK.
Obviously if a guy with PD 2002 or 2003 does not apply there is no way he can get the AOS approved.
But do you mean a guy with PD '2007 May' applies now and a guy with PD '2000 March' (for some unkown reason) applies in 'Oct 2007'. Assuming that the PD cut off date retrogressed to '2000 March' then the guy with '2007 May' PD but with RD '2007 July' would be in a better shape than a guy with '2000 March' PD but with RD '2007 Oct'.
tattoo Young Money - We Are Young
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
more...
pictures Young Money amp; Nicki Minaj
tabletpc
09-10 02:33 PM
How is that DOL website does not have this information...???
dresses Download Young Money Marvel
Eb3_frustrated
04-25 02:22 PM
Learning01,
There is too much curbing of free speech, you admins are taking a heavy handed approach to discussions. Deleting posts at will, diverting topics at whims and fancies...
Let there be discussins, there is nothing wrong in floating ideas.. allow members to express. Not every idea needs to be implemented.
This sort of arrogance is not going help anybody's cause.
Just my two cents...
There is too much curbing of free speech, you admins are taking a heavy handed approach to discussions. Deleting posts at will, diverting topics at whims and fancies...
Let there be discussins, there is nothing wrong in floating ideas.. allow members to express. Not every idea needs to be implemented.
This sort of arrogance is not going help anybody's cause.
Just my two cents...
more...
makeup LIL WAYNE + YOUNG MONEY +
diptam
07-06 01:04 PM
He is a excellent lawyer it seems , may be i'll hire him ...
What is his name , is he/she a AILA member ?
My lawyer told me that they are working on something to accept all applications which reached on july ... lets hope he is right.
What is his name , is he/she a AILA member ?
My lawyer told me that they are working on something to accept all applications which reached on july ... lets hope he is right.
girlfriend #39;Young Money#39; On The Road
Robert Kumar
03-15 05:43 PM
btw you can check it out at
welcome to the icert portal (http://icert.doleta.gov/)
!!! T h a n k y o u !!!
welcome to the icert portal (http://icert.doleta.gov/)
!!! T h a n k y o u !!!
hairstyles Young Money - Young Money
micofrost
07-06 01:38 PM
For sure DoS knew that something is wrong at USCIS end. Looks like they dint get along well on this one. So instead of saying that all the visa numbers has been used up, they said " all the entire 2007 numbers has been made available". Which means they know very well USCIS are still processing the cases, even after July 2nd.
Looks like, DOS trying to clean their hands and put the blame on USCIS.
This is what happened. Again my thoughts based on last fews days before the july 2nd.
USCIS was angered by DOS making it current for all categories. Every one knows there will be a minimum 100K apps flooding their gates. Imagine the revenue loss for them just bcoz of making it current b4 30th july. They expected DOS to make it current from Aug 1st instead of July 1st. Had the immigration bill passed, as promised by the GOVT., they would have stand to gain $4B in grants to secure the border. But the bill crashed on 27th of june. So what do they do to stop this loss of revenue from our application. They have to use of the entire fiscal 2007 quota in three days so that legally they can't accept more applications. Now that is legally correct. But they way they claimed all the visas within 4 days wasn't played by the rules and where the AILF stands chance to file a lawsuit against them.
Someone in the USCIS was hell bent upon forcing the DOS to make it unavailable for July. WHY ?
Looks like, DOS trying to clean their hands and put the blame on USCIS.
This is what happened. Again my thoughts based on last fews days before the july 2nd.
USCIS was angered by DOS making it current for all categories. Every one knows there will be a minimum 100K apps flooding their gates. Imagine the revenue loss for them just bcoz of making it current b4 30th july. They expected DOS to make it current from Aug 1st instead of July 1st. Had the immigration bill passed, as promised by the GOVT., they would have stand to gain $4B in grants to secure the border. But the bill crashed on 27th of june. So what do they do to stop this loss of revenue from our application. They have to use of the entire fiscal 2007 quota in three days so that legally they can't accept more applications. Now that is legally correct. But they way they claimed all the visas within 4 days wasn't played by the rules and where the AILF stands chance to file a lawsuit against them.
Someone in the USCIS was hell bent upon forcing the DOS to make it unavailable for July. WHY ?
funny
09-11 07:17 PM
I am in too...its not going to harm anything...
bugs2007
06-10 01:07 PM
Hi,
I am sure you all have seen the bulletin:
F. EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Demand for numbers, primarily by USCIS for adjustment of status cases, will bring the entire Employment Third preference category to the annual numerical limit by the end of June. As a result, this category will become “unavailable” beginning in July and will remain so for the remainder of FY-2008. Such action will only be temporary, however, and Employment Third preference availability will return to the cut-off dates established for June in October, the first month of the new fiscal year.
Does this mean that all the numbers for EB3 have been used up, and there will be no more EB3 cases processed till Oct 2008, and hence the category is U;
or
Does it mean that they will continue to process the cases but the category is U for filing any new cases till Oct 2008?
Thank you.
I am sure you all have seen the bulletin:
F. EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Demand for numbers, primarily by USCIS for adjustment of status cases, will bring the entire Employment Third preference category to the annual numerical limit by the end of June. As a result, this category will become “unavailable” beginning in July and will remain so for the remainder of FY-2008. Such action will only be temporary, however, and Employment Third preference availability will return to the cut-off dates established for June in October, the first month of the new fiscal year.
Does this mean that all the numbers for EB3 have been used up, and there will be no more EB3 cases processed till Oct 2008, and hence the category is U;
or
Does it mean that they will continue to process the cases but the category is U for filing any new cases till Oct 2008?
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment