gg_ny
09-18 10:16 AM
A naive question: why post 2004 -is there a reasoning behind that or is it just an arbit cutoff date for sake of discussion? I am just being selfish here (my PD is Dec 2004).
Friends,
I had created this thread to share ideas on what we can do, given the grim situation we are in. I will really appreciate if others come up with ideas and make it part of this thread.
Friends,
I had created this thread to share ideas on what we can do, given the grim situation we are in. I will really appreciate if others come up with ideas and make it part of this thread.
wallpaper highlights for dark brown hair
GCBy3000
05-03 09:17 PM
This looks pretty high. The total count for 2004 & 2005 is 140K for India. Already the backlog center is having 300K applications out of which some 40%(guess) would be for India.
acecupid
09-06 08:33 PM
Read something interesting on TOI..
NRIs treated as Not Required Indians! - India - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/NRIs-treated-as-Not-Required-Indians/articleshow/4979439.cms)
Indubhai Amin, a non-resident Indian (NRI) settled in the UK earns interest income of Rs 3 lakh on his non-resident ordinary account bank deposit in
India in the current FY 2009-10. Enjoying his personal exemption limit of Rs 1.60 lakh and the eligible deduction of Rs 1 lakh u/s 80C, Amin is comfortable paying income tax of Rs 4,000 in the first slab of 10 per cent on his effective taxable income of Rs 40,000.
Flat tax of 20% and 30%
A huge shock awaits Amin and millions of NRIs, in regard to taxation of their interest and investment income and capital gains earned in India, proposed to be treated under the draft Direct Tax Code as "income from special sources."
In 2011-12, on the same interest income of Rs 3 lakh, Amin will be required to pay a hefty tax of Rs 60,000 at the flat rate of 20 per cent, without being eligible to claim any basic exemption or other deduction, as provided under rule three of the First Schedule to the Code.
Moreover, all capital gains earned by a non-resident will attract a flat tax of 30 per cent, irrespective of the amount of capital gains. While a resident Indian will be required to pay tax of Rs 3.84 lakh on his taxable income of Rs 25 lakh, an NRI earning equivalent capital gains will be called upon to pay almost double tax of Rs 7.5 lakh.
Hair-raising drafting
New section 13 (2) provides that such �special income� shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Ninth Schedule, the drafting of which is literally hair-raising. It provides that the amount of accrual or receipt shall be computed as the taxable income, and no loss, allowance or deduction shall be allowed, as the same shall be presumed to have been granted. The only exception in this regard, in respect of capital gains arising from the transfer of equity shares or units of equity oriented mutual fund chargeable to STT, is quite amusing, as it stands redundant in view of the proposal to abolish STT (a classic instance of incoherent drafting).
The draftsman does not seem to have realized the harsh implications. It means that if an NRI sells a capital asset purchased for Rs 10 lakh at Rs 30 lakh, he will be required to pay tax of Rs 9 lakh at 30 per cent on the gross sale consideration of Rs 30 lakh without any deduction even for the cost of acquisition of Rs 10 lakh (not to mention any benefit of indexation on the same).
Determination of residential status
The residential status of an individual under the Code is proposed to be determined as per the current norms. However, the status of "not ordinarily resident" (NOR) is proposed to be eliminated. Despite the above, Clause 24 of the Sixth Schedule has still provided for exemption in respect of interest earned on foreign currency deposits in the case of NOR. Poor drafting indeed!
The Code has proposed to retain the current exemptions availed by a non-resident in case of interest earned on NRE and FCNR deposits with banks.
Special exemption for returning NRIs
A useful exemption has been provided in case of income earned outside India, if it is not derived from a business controlled from India, in the financial year in which the returning NRI becomes an Indian resident and the immediately succeeding financial year. However, the benefit of the said exemption would be available, only if such individual was a non-resident for nine years immediately preceding the financial year in which he becomes a resident.
Wealth-tax liability for NRIs
Proposed Section 102 of the Code provides for wealth tax liability in the case of the value of all global assets of an individual or HUF. However, an exemption has been provided in case of the value of assets located outside India in case of an individual who is not a citizen of India or an individual or HUF not resident in India. Hence, while returning NRIs who are non-citizens will enjoy wealth-tax exemption for their overseas assets, NRIs with Indian citizenship becoming residents will attract wealth-tax liability on such assets held abroad.
Illogical exemption under wealth-tax
Talking about wealth tax, the Code prescribes an exemption in respect of any house or plot of land belonging to an individual or HUF, if it is acquired before April 1, 2000. It is difficult to understand the logic as to why this exemption has been denied in all cases where such immovable property is acquired after March 31, 2000!
Proposals That Will Hurt the Global Indian Sentiment
Flat Rate of Tax
20% flat tax on interest & other investment income
30% flat tax on all capital gains
Apart from 20% & 30% TDS on above, TDS at a baffling rate of 35% prescribed on all residual income
No Personal Exemption
No personal exemption or deduction allowed in computing the above income treated as �income from special sources�.
Weird Interpretation
Poor drafting leads to such a weird interpretation that transfer of a capital asset may attract 30% tax on gross sale consideration.
What Discrimination!
Ironical but true! Non-Indian sportspersons, say Ricky Ponting or Shoaib Akhtar, required to pay a concessional tax of 10% on their game, advertisement and column earnings in India, thus enjoying a more privileged tax status than our own sons of the soil living abroad.
NRIs treated as Not Required Indians! - India - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/NRIs-treated-as-Not-Required-Indians/articleshow/4979439.cms)
Indubhai Amin, a non-resident Indian (NRI) settled in the UK earns interest income of Rs 3 lakh on his non-resident ordinary account bank deposit in
India in the current FY 2009-10. Enjoying his personal exemption limit of Rs 1.60 lakh and the eligible deduction of Rs 1 lakh u/s 80C, Amin is comfortable paying income tax of Rs 4,000 in the first slab of 10 per cent on his effective taxable income of Rs 40,000.
Flat tax of 20% and 30%
A huge shock awaits Amin and millions of NRIs, in regard to taxation of their interest and investment income and capital gains earned in India, proposed to be treated under the draft Direct Tax Code as "income from special sources."
In 2011-12, on the same interest income of Rs 3 lakh, Amin will be required to pay a hefty tax of Rs 60,000 at the flat rate of 20 per cent, without being eligible to claim any basic exemption or other deduction, as provided under rule three of the First Schedule to the Code.
Moreover, all capital gains earned by a non-resident will attract a flat tax of 30 per cent, irrespective of the amount of capital gains. While a resident Indian will be required to pay tax of Rs 3.84 lakh on his taxable income of Rs 25 lakh, an NRI earning equivalent capital gains will be called upon to pay almost double tax of Rs 7.5 lakh.
Hair-raising drafting
New section 13 (2) provides that such �special income� shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Ninth Schedule, the drafting of which is literally hair-raising. It provides that the amount of accrual or receipt shall be computed as the taxable income, and no loss, allowance or deduction shall be allowed, as the same shall be presumed to have been granted. The only exception in this regard, in respect of capital gains arising from the transfer of equity shares or units of equity oriented mutual fund chargeable to STT, is quite amusing, as it stands redundant in view of the proposal to abolish STT (a classic instance of incoherent drafting).
The draftsman does not seem to have realized the harsh implications. It means that if an NRI sells a capital asset purchased for Rs 10 lakh at Rs 30 lakh, he will be required to pay tax of Rs 9 lakh at 30 per cent on the gross sale consideration of Rs 30 lakh without any deduction even for the cost of acquisition of Rs 10 lakh (not to mention any benefit of indexation on the same).
Determination of residential status
The residential status of an individual under the Code is proposed to be determined as per the current norms. However, the status of "not ordinarily resident" (NOR) is proposed to be eliminated. Despite the above, Clause 24 of the Sixth Schedule has still provided for exemption in respect of interest earned on foreign currency deposits in the case of NOR. Poor drafting indeed!
The Code has proposed to retain the current exemptions availed by a non-resident in case of interest earned on NRE and FCNR deposits with banks.
Special exemption for returning NRIs
A useful exemption has been provided in case of income earned outside India, if it is not derived from a business controlled from India, in the financial year in which the returning NRI becomes an Indian resident and the immediately succeeding financial year. However, the benefit of the said exemption would be available, only if such individual was a non-resident for nine years immediately preceding the financial year in which he becomes a resident.
Wealth-tax liability for NRIs
Proposed Section 102 of the Code provides for wealth tax liability in the case of the value of all global assets of an individual or HUF. However, an exemption has been provided in case of the value of assets located outside India in case of an individual who is not a citizen of India or an individual or HUF not resident in India. Hence, while returning NRIs who are non-citizens will enjoy wealth-tax exemption for their overseas assets, NRIs with Indian citizenship becoming residents will attract wealth-tax liability on such assets held abroad.
Illogical exemption under wealth-tax
Talking about wealth tax, the Code prescribes an exemption in respect of any house or plot of land belonging to an individual or HUF, if it is acquired before April 1, 2000. It is difficult to understand the logic as to why this exemption has been denied in all cases where such immovable property is acquired after March 31, 2000!
Proposals That Will Hurt the Global Indian Sentiment
Flat Rate of Tax
20% flat tax on interest & other investment income
30% flat tax on all capital gains
Apart from 20% & 30% TDS on above, TDS at a baffling rate of 35% prescribed on all residual income
No Personal Exemption
No personal exemption or deduction allowed in computing the above income treated as �income from special sources�.
Weird Interpretation
Poor drafting leads to such a weird interpretation that transfer of a capital asset may attract 30% tax on gross sale consideration.
What Discrimination!
Ironical but true! Non-Indian sportspersons, say Ricky Ponting or Shoaib Akhtar, required to pay a concessional tax of 10% on their game, advertisement and column earnings in India, thus enjoying a more privileged tax status than our own sons of the soil living abroad.
2011 wallpaper Brown Hair with
manand24
09-17 07:23 PM
I am on the same boat. My I-485 receipt and my wife's receipt have SOURCE as UNKNOWN.
PD 04/2006 EB2 INDIA
I-140 NSC AP 10/2006
SELF:
I-485 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail
I-131 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail
I-765 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND Pending - NO Update yet.
WIFE
I-485 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail
I-131 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND Pending - NO Update yet
I-765 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND Pending - NO Update yet
PD 04/2006 EB2 INDIA
I-140 NSC AP 10/2006
SELF:
I-485 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail
I-131 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail
I-765 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND Pending - NO Update yet.
WIFE
I-485 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND 09/10/2007 - Receipt Notice recieved from NSC on 09/17/2007 via USPS Mail
I-131 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND Pending - NO Update yet
I-765 NSC RD 07/02/07 ND Pending - NO Update yet
more...
vts31
10-20 02:53 AM
about painter.
1. version 5 sux.
2. ive never used 7. but i think its pretty good.
i use 6.
1. version 5 sux.
2. ive never used 7. but i think its pretty good.
i use 6.
akred
07-07 12:57 PM
Rated 5 stars.
more...
pradeep_s
12-20 11:01 PM
Hi Msyedy,
Thanks for clarifying. What I know is I did not need a labor approval as my case was national interest waiver (NIW, EB2). I have I-140 approval notice, I-797 (Notice of action for H1b). For H1b also, there is a similar 'labor approval', but I do not have any papers to show that. I was told to take my waiver approval (foreign residency requirement- waiver), and I-797, and I-140 approval.
Thank you,
pradeep
Thanks for clarifying. What I know is I did not need a labor approval as my case was national interest waiver (NIW, EB2). I have I-140 approval notice, I-797 (Notice of action for H1b). For H1b also, there is a similar 'labor approval', but I do not have any papers to show that. I was told to take my waiver approval (foreign residency requirement- waiver), and I-797, and I-140 approval.
Thank you,
pradeep
2010 rown and red highlights
vpgreencard
07-30 09:46 PM
The date will move to sept 2002 since this is my PD and then it will stuck for another 5 years.
more...
JSimmivoice
01-22 08:21 PM
I was working for a Company A with whom I recently had my petition extended until this year Aug. Then I got laid off and then changed to Company B in Dec 09. But since then until now which is 6 weeks my current employer (his lawyer) has not filed my H1 to USCIS and going to do it shortly. But then Company A again want to rehire me now. One good thing is my Current I-797 petition is with Company A which is not revoked and is valid. But the bad news is they say I've been out of H1 Status since I left them in Dec and that would be a problem for them and for me to rehire me.
The Options Company A is giving me is to go out and get restamping done based on the current petition I have and agree/confess to Consulate that I was out of H1 status for 6 weeks and was under unauthorized employment (which I did not intent to break law as I only came to know a week back that my new employer has not filed the H1) and ask their forgiveness to come out clean. But under the current H1 weather I really don't want to risk going for restamping is one and revealing that I was out of status for 6 weeks which leave my chances of restamping slim.
So I'm really looking for an answer here from someone who either has went through my situation or someone with experience or a professional advice. Just let me know how can I join back Company A legally without going out of US to restamp?
The Options Company A is giving me is to go out and get restamping done based on the current petition I have and agree/confess to Consulate that I was out of H1 status for 6 weeks and was under unauthorized employment (which I did not intent to break law as I only came to know a week back that my new employer has not filed the H1) and ask their forgiveness to come out clean. But under the current H1 weather I really don't want to risk going for restamping is one and revealing that I was out of status for 6 weeks which leave my chances of restamping slim.
So I'm really looking for an answer here from someone who either has went through my situation or someone with experience or a professional advice. Just let me know how can I join back Company A legally without going out of US to restamp?
hair rown hair with highlights
ronhira
10-26 02:34 PM
Irrespective of political parties or the issues, I am proud of this Indian guy standing up against "fair and balanced fox news"
he must be a citizen (since he is chairman of Milwaukee, WI, Dem party) - wonder if IV members from the area could approach him to stand up for us too..........
Fox News Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/fox-news-wisconsin-democrats_n_774164.html)
& y do u think this guy or someone like him will stand up for us when v r not willing to stand up for our issues?
he must be a citizen (since he is chairman of Milwaukee, WI, Dem party) - wonder if IV members from the area could approach him to stand up for us too..........
Fox News Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/fox-news-wisconsin-democrats_n_774164.html)
& y do u think this guy or someone like him will stand up for us when v r not willing to stand up for our issues?
more...
abhijitp
06-21 02:48 PM
Also : 140 gets rejected in following cases:
1. Degree compatability
2. Exp + degree in EB2
3. Financial ability of firm - this only with bad records
i dont see any other reason why 140 should be rejected i am not over optimistic but any one can comment on these it would great.
BigBoy, it can get an RFE bcos of insufficient evidence to support "EB-2". A rejection can also happen for trivial reasons e.g. my labor cert was first rejected for a typo (incorrect date), and we had to re-file a week later.
I spoke to my attorney/HR and they are ok to premium process my first I-140 (which is categorized incorrectly as EB-3 by the paralegal, although the covering letter for that I-140 clearly says EB-2.)
But my Successor in interest application cannot be premium processed as the original labor app was attached to the first I-140. Apparently there is a rule you can only premium process an I-140 which has the original labor cert attached.
When I asked my attorney if USCIS will return the original labor cert at the end of the first I-140 decision, she said NO, it is not returned!! Is this true? I was hoping to at least get hold of that original labor cert, so that if the I-140 is somehow rejected then I could use the original labor cert to file a new I-140 successor in interest application under premium processing.
Comments/suggestions welcome.
Thanks!
Abhijit
1. Degree compatability
2. Exp + degree in EB2
3. Financial ability of firm - this only with bad records
i dont see any other reason why 140 should be rejected i am not over optimistic but any one can comment on these it would great.
BigBoy, it can get an RFE bcos of insufficient evidence to support "EB-2". A rejection can also happen for trivial reasons e.g. my labor cert was first rejected for a typo (incorrect date), and we had to re-file a week later.
I spoke to my attorney/HR and they are ok to premium process my first I-140 (which is categorized incorrectly as EB-3 by the paralegal, although the covering letter for that I-140 clearly says EB-2.)
But my Successor in interest application cannot be premium processed as the original labor app was attached to the first I-140. Apparently there is a rule you can only premium process an I-140 which has the original labor cert attached.
When I asked my attorney if USCIS will return the original labor cert at the end of the first I-140 decision, she said NO, it is not returned!! Is this true? I was hoping to at least get hold of that original labor cert, so that if the I-140 is somehow rejected then I could use the original labor cert to file a new I-140 successor in interest application under premium processing.
Comments/suggestions welcome.
Thanks!
Abhijit
hot rown hair with highlights
sam_hoosier
05-22 11:23 AM
plss do not rush with ur filing in june....pls file after june 10th so that cut off dates move foward in july VB.
;)
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
;)
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
more...
house curly dark brown with red
jonty_11
02-13 05:42 PM
call customer care USCIS and ask for an update/status
tattoo Thick, long, dark brown hair
skodu
08-03 12:35 AM
If the ROW numbers are not used up, they could be used for EB3/EB2 for India 9and China to some extent) at the end of the Fiscal year. All these AILF/AILA lawyers are saying there is no law for doing this.
But I don't see anyone mentioning anywhere that Law prohibits explicitly using those numbers for India EB3, like they did this year. The Visa bulletin provides guidelines on the country cap, but it does not address the unused numbers condition at the end of fiscal year. SO using them for some backlogged countries is not against the law. I think it finally depends on the internal USCIS officials who interprets the law. They will do whatever they want internally within those guide lines. If nothing is written explicitly that it is against the law, then they are not breaking the law. i am not sure if my assumption and interpretation is correct. But these are my thoughts based on events. But This thread has very good observations and study of the past events. Thanks to Dollar500 and Sanju.
But I don't see anyone mentioning anywhere that Law prohibits explicitly using those numbers for India EB3, like they did this year. The Visa bulletin provides guidelines on the country cap, but it does not address the unused numbers condition at the end of fiscal year. SO using them for some backlogged countries is not against the law. I think it finally depends on the internal USCIS officials who interprets the law. They will do whatever they want internally within those guide lines. If nothing is written explicitly that it is against the law, then they are not breaking the law. i am not sure if my assumption and interpretation is correct. But these are my thoughts based on events. But This thread has very good observations and study of the past events. Thanks to Dollar500 and Sanju.
more...
pictures clip in hair extensions red
amsgc
06-20 09:43 PM
Your interpretation of the original poster's statement and your bottom line assertion are both incorrect.
The original poster has said that s/he has a valid visa till 2010. Even if s/he has the I-94 that came with the H-1B approval notice (assuming they did a change/extension of status), that I-94 doesn't define the status of the benficiary once s/he leaves and re-enteres the country.
What matters is the Class of admission and duration of status on the most recent I-94, not just any I-94.
S/he has to have a valid I-94 to stay in the country legally. I-797 usually comes with an I-94. However, what the original poster said is that his/her I-94 is going to expire. I am interpreting the statement to mean that among the I-94's (one or more) s/he holds, the one with farthest validity is going to expire. If it does, s/he has to go out and get a new I-94 while re-entering. If s/he applies for some other status, and relevant I-797 comes with another I-94, then that's different. The bottom-line is, s/he has to have a valid I-94. It is irrelevant if the I-94 is given by the IO at the entry post or attached to an I-797.
The original poster has said that s/he has a valid visa till 2010. Even if s/he has the I-94 that came with the H-1B approval notice (assuming they did a change/extension of status), that I-94 doesn't define the status of the benficiary once s/he leaves and re-enteres the country.
What matters is the Class of admission and duration of status on the most recent I-94, not just any I-94.
S/he has to have a valid I-94 to stay in the country legally. I-797 usually comes with an I-94. However, what the original poster said is that his/her I-94 is going to expire. I am interpreting the statement to mean that among the I-94's (one or more) s/he holds, the one with farthest validity is going to expire. If it does, s/he has to go out and get a new I-94 while re-entering. If s/he applies for some other status, and relevant I-797 comes with another I-94, then that's different. The bottom-line is, s/he has to have a valid I-94. It is irrelevant if the I-94 is given by the IO at the entry post or attached to an I-797.
dresses rown hair blonde highlights
piyu7444
07-03 01:59 AM
it is advisable not to leave the country while H1 extension is pending and you cannot lie to the immigration officer at the port of entry. if they take your I-94 while leaving (if going to Mexico, they generally do not take I-94) then you may have a problem reentering and you may have to wait until H1 extension is approved and then reenter using the new H1 approval.
Mine is not h1 extension but what is called transfer - Company A to company B. Can I not enter using Company A's documents as they did not cancel my h1b and wont cancel it either. Also I will get pay stub from them till jul 15 for work done till jun 20th.
Mine is not h1 extension but what is called transfer - Company A to company B. Can I not enter using Company A's documents as they did not cancel my h1b and wont cancel it either. Also I will get pay stub from them till jul 15 for work done till jun 20th.
more...
makeup londe hair red highlights.
immi_2006
10-23 12:23 PM
If you are worrying about your GC costs then file it on your own. Its very easy. I filed 485 on my own along with EAD and AP. I got my receipt numbers, EAD, FP. I guess 140 needs to be filed my employer with help of Attorney. Or you can file with help of your employer.(i am not sure on this)
girlfriend dark brown hair red
InTheMoment
07-17 09:32 PM
XM0625 is the officer id.
hairstyles Her light rown hair cascading
raysaikat
10-10 11:37 AM
Thank you very much for all your support.
Do I need to inform him before I leave ? because he is with his relative place. What is the process for that ?
This is a domestic problem, not an immigration one. Legally, a dependent is assumed to _depend_ on you. Anyway, just give him a call/send an email/letter informing that his stay would be illegal after you leave.
If I leave without informing him, then what he can do on me ?
Legally, nothing.
Do I need to inform him before I leave ? because he is with his relative place. What is the process for that ?
This is a domestic problem, not an immigration one. Legally, a dependent is assumed to _depend_ on you. Anyway, just give him a call/send an email/letter informing that his stay would be illegal after you leave.
If I leave without informing him, then what he can do on me ?
Legally, nothing.
pash02
05-26 11:37 AM
Thanks to IV core members, QGA, senators and their staff.
Kudos to Immigration Voice!
Kudos to Immigration Voice!
dfwhunt
05-22 11:54 AM
Yes, if they can file their 485 after June10..there will be certainely some more movement of PDs...