tinuverma
03-18 11:45 AM
I am on H1 (8th year - not using EAD which I have) right now and a citizen friend of mine wants me to be involved with his website company. Business would involve subscription based access to website. He has hinted that one thing he is willing to consider is awarding me some percentage share in the company in return for my services as his website is not yet profitable.
If I would like to take that, what is the way to go?
1. Specifically, can someone tell me what I should do - LLC, something else...?
2. How would I pay myself from this without breaking H1-B laws?
3. If tomorrow I wanna close this company as I dont want to keep it for any reason, is there anything I need to be concerned with? Or it's as easy to close as a simple status update, call, etc?
Thanks
T
If I would like to take that, what is the way to go?
1. Specifically, can someone tell me what I should do - LLC, something else...?
2. How would I pay myself from this without breaking H1-B laws?
3. If tomorrow I wanna close this company as I dont want to keep it for any reason, is there anything I need to be concerned with? Or it's as easy to close as a simple status update, call, etc?
Thanks
T
wallpaper Bieber)(Part 1) quiz
ita
01-16 12:05 PM
While on EAD-AC21 do you know if they compare the salary mentioned on offer letter or the acual W2 amount or is it both to check if it is close to what is mentioned on LC?
Because the salary on offer letter could be like $15K-$20K/$20K-$30K more than what is mentioned on LC but
If the W2 reflects not so much difference(like you go on unpaid vacations if possible) then will this be OK?
Appreciate your advice on this
Man how many things we have to watch before we do this AC21.I think sometimes I'm thinking/planning too much rather than just taking the jump.
Thank you.
Because the salary on offer letter could be like $15K-$20K/$20K-$30K more than what is mentioned on LC but
If the W2 reflects not so much difference(like you go on unpaid vacations if possible) then will this be OK?
Appreciate your advice on this
Man how many things we have to watch before we do this AC21.I think sometimes I'm thinking/planning too much rather than just taking the jump.
Thank you.
anilsal
10-12 12:52 AM
If you apply too early, then if you get approved early, you lose out on overlapping days.
If you apply and the EAD does not come in time, then you are off the payroll until the thing actually comes.
Interim EAD is the immediate solution to this.
If you apply and the EAD does not come in time, then you are off the payroll until the thing actually comes.
Interim EAD is the immediate solution to this.
2011 ieber facebook emoticon,
Dhundhun
10-23 02:13 PM
buy a return ticket . Cathay Pacific has tickets valid for a year. They have no change fees etc. so you can change the return date whenever you want.
Rates vary for 4 months, 6 months and 1 year return tickets. Decide as per your convenience.
Rates vary for 4 months, 6 months and 1 year return tickets. Decide as per your convenience.
more...
arihant
06-19 03:38 PM
Finally This Is My Turn To Rejoice. My Lawyer Email Me Saying That She Got Off From Phone From Dol And My Lc Is Approved.
1)how Long It Takes For The Physical Paper To Arrive? Do We Need That Physical Paper To File For 140 And 485?
2)the Online Status Still Shows "in Process"
Gurus, Please Help Me
I got mine in less than 2 weeks from DBEC. I think you need this to file 140.
1)how Long It Takes For The Physical Paper To Arrive? Do We Need That Physical Paper To File For 140 And 485?
2)the Online Status Still Shows "in Process"
Gurus, Please Help Me
I got mine in less than 2 weeks from DBEC. I think you need this to file 140.
gcwanted101
09-01 04:26 PM
Thanks gcwanted101.
So it looks like G639 is only for requests to USCIS and not for DOL.
Can anyone who has submitted an FOIA request to DOL for Labor docs clarify the process?
I browsed the DOL web site, but they don't seem to have a form similar to USCIS G-639 form.
lj_rr,
you dont need any special form to make FOIA request to DOL.
"The Department of Labor does not require a special form in order to make a FOIA request. Requests must be in writing, either handwritten or typed. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, mail, or to foiarequest@dol.gov. Although, as discussed immediately below, certain information may be required from a requester. "
U.S. Department of Labor -- Freedom of Information Act Guide (http://www.dol.gov/dol/foia/guide6.htm#how)
So it looks like G639 is only for requests to USCIS and not for DOL.
Can anyone who has submitted an FOIA request to DOL for Labor docs clarify the process?
I browsed the DOL web site, but they don't seem to have a form similar to USCIS G-639 form.
lj_rr,
you dont need any special form to make FOIA request to DOL.
"The Department of Labor does not require a special form in order to make a FOIA request. Requests must be in writing, either handwritten or typed. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, mail, or to foiarequest@dol.gov. Although, as discussed immediately below, certain information may be required from a requester. "
U.S. Department of Labor -- Freedom of Information Act Guide (http://www.dol.gov/dol/foia/guide6.htm#how)
more...
rangaswamy
10-18 12:32 PM
Im just wondering.. my check has not been cashed. i was sent more than a month ago.
My check to IV that is, NOT USCIS
Can i start a new thread for that :)
My check to IV that is, NOT USCIS
Can i start a new thread for that :)
2010 Bieber)(Part 2) quiz
james_bond_007
03-13 12:01 AM
Congratulations !!
Looks like TSC abandoned online status updates and emails. My case has been assigned to an officer (again) and enroute to I-485 manager as of Feb 3rd 2008 ( senator feedback ). So far no LUD's or emails.. Looks like instead of checking for emails every other minute , I have to wait for regular mail now.. unfortunately I can do that only once per day !! :( ..
Looks like TSC abandoned online status updates and emails. My case has been assigned to an officer (again) and enroute to I-485 manager as of Feb 3rd 2008 ( senator feedback ). So far no LUD's or emails.. Looks like instead of checking for emails every other minute , I have to wait for regular mail now.. unfortunately I can do that only once per day !! :( ..
more...
JK747
07-16 09:25 AM
That does not make sense! Peaople on H4 are not allowed to work, period! Thats how the Visa category is defined. Now, how will one on H4 to work? Enter EAD! So, while EAD allows him/her to work, it changes the Visa status (be it H1 or H4) to AOS. It does not matter if you travel outside or not.
I do not know how you extended your spouse's H4 with the help of the attorney. It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
Micofrost is CORRECT. My wife is on H4 and working on EAD currently. My lawyer had also confirmed that working on EAD does not affect H4 status.
I do not know how you extended your spouse's H4 with the help of the attorney. It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
Micofrost is CORRECT. My wife is on H4 and working on EAD currently. My lawyer had also confirmed that working on EAD does not affect H4 status.
hair emoticones smileys kawaii
STAmisha
11-14 05:55 PM
My RIR is rejected. My LC is still pending.
My lawyer says it is moved to TR queue
If My case is moved to TR queue, does it mean very significant delay in getting my LC? Because in such a case this is my breaking point.Ready to quit and give up after these years and years if pain
My lawyer says it is moved to TR queue
If My case is moved to TR queue, does it mean very significant delay in getting my LC? Because in such a case this is my breaking point.Ready to quit and give up after these years and years if pain
more...
aristotle
02-08 12:46 PM
You can say to your current employer that you want to try out something new, but if it doesn't work out you want to have the option of coming back.
If they like you enough, they will consider it. How long to leave it active is another question. Lets say you were able to port the PD to your new I140. If the old employer then revokes the I140, are you still ok with the old PD?
If they like you enough, they will consider it. How long to leave it active is another question. Lets say you were able to port the PD to your new I140. If the old employer then revokes the I140, are you still ok with the old PD?
hot justin lol smileys icons
shishya
09-02 11:13 AM
When i called last time when my wife EAD got approved, they told me the address on the application. So they should know.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
I did not get any soft LUD. Will all the updates happening, folks getting second FP, I wanted to make sure my case is not getting delayed due to some mistake either on their or my part. If nothing else, upon changing the address using online means, USCIS should have sent me a notice in mail at my new address to confirm the change, which I did not get. Hence the query.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
I did not get any soft LUD. Will all the updates happening, folks getting second FP, I wanted to make sure my case is not getting delayed due to some mistake either on their or my part. If nothing else, upon changing the address using online means, USCIS should have sent me a notice in mail at my new address to confirm the change, which I did not get. Hence the query.
more...
house and emoticons on facebook
moonrah
05-16 05:34 PM
called ...
tattoo while driving emoticon,
ttdam
10-02 04:42 PM
EB2 or EB3 ?
I m tensed based on your experience,
How big is the company (your H1 employer) in terms of employees and revenue ?
Thanks for sharing the info.
I m tensed based on your experience,
How big is the company (your H1 employer) in terms of employees and revenue ?
Thanks for sharing the info.
more...
pictures australian iphone Emoticon
deba
06-05 05:42 PM
In the same boat, I have the same status on USPS tracking for delivery at TSC. Will wait and see if the status changes or if they cash the check. So I guess you are not alone. :-)
dresses if justin ieber DIED what
Libra
09-14 03:38 PM
DC ad..........on radio now
more...
makeup Justin justin ieber shot
GC_1000Watt
07-28 05:42 PM
So, I was talking to one of the attorneys and he mentioned that one should contest the denial within 30 days and as long as it is approved, we don't have any problem. But, if the MTR is rejected, then all the days that have been accumulated after the denial will be in illegal status.
What is the probability of cases of MTR getting approved after the relevant documents have been published?
For the client letter denial reason, did anybody furnish further documents?
Appreciate your inputs
I was in same situation last year and as suggested by a very good lawyer, instead of filing MTR, me and my company re-applied under premium processing. I got the extension with I-94 within 10 days after I re-applied.
MTR is time cosuming and all the time you will be worried about it. Also if MTR gets denied for any reason then you are putting yourself in big trouble.
I would suggest you to reapply with solid paperwork under premium processing. Don't forget to ask your lawyer to include a cover letter telling USCIS about the earlier denial and why they should reconsider the case based on the attached documents.
That worked for me like a dream and hope it works for you as well.
Good luck friend!
What is the probability of cases of MTR getting approved after the relevant documents have been published?
For the client letter denial reason, did anybody furnish further documents?
Appreciate your inputs
I was in same situation last year and as suggested by a very good lawyer, instead of filing MTR, me and my company re-applied under premium processing. I got the extension with I-94 within 10 days after I re-applied.
MTR is time cosuming and all the time you will be worried about it. Also if MTR gets denied for any reason then you are putting yourself in big trouble.
I would suggest you to reapply with solid paperwork under premium processing. Don't forget to ask your lawyer to include a cover letter telling USCIS about the earlier denial and why they should reconsider the case based on the attached documents.
That worked for me like a dream and hope it works for you as well.
Good luck friend!
girlfriend made so Bieber head face
desigun
04-26 05:41 PM
Only yesterday i called up to check for my mom, who will be coming to US from India. The CS rep clearly told me that she is allowed 2 X 50 lbs and 1 Carry on (18lbs) in her journey.
hairstyles by XxKarissa Rawr Bieber!
vin13
01-16 11:52 AM
Yes, it would be part of the lottery system (for company C)
Yes, there is a chance of H1 not going through.
It is as good as you applying for the H1-B for the first time.
Yes, there is a chance of H1 not going through.
It is as good as you applying for the H1-B for the first time.
cris
08-30 10:00 AM
for gg_ny
this is extension of H1B based of aproved I140 .
if i understood correctly the application for H1 extension will became null and void if i travel outside of US .
this is very interesting. I was not aware about this .
Anyway, thank you for your valuable input
this is extension of H1B based of aproved I140 .
if i understood correctly the application for H1 extension will became null and void if i travel outside of US .
this is very interesting. I was not aware about this .
Anyway, thank you for your valuable input
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment