small2006
07-11 12:14 PM
When I went recently for my EAD renewal FP (I deliberately e-filed EAD renewal to get this FP notice, and it came fast), I took a copy of my I485 receipt notice, and explained to them that I have been waiting for that other FP for almost a year (never opened SR). They promptly took both FPs (code-1 for I485 and code-2 for EAD), and also told me I should never have waited this long, and instead should have contacted them (I guess they meant by Infopass) after 2-3 months.
I was not aware that you needed an FP for EAD renewal as well. Could you please clarify? I always had thought that FP is related to 485 and not EAD. Am I wrong?
Also, not sure which Infopass center you went to, but my center happens to be San Antonio and I have already been there twice before for expediting EAD/AP for my wife and we also asked them about finger printing then and they said they are not an "authorized" center for that although the USCIS rep I spoke to told me to go there.
I have anyway taken another info pass appointment there again just to try my luck again.
I was not aware that you needed an FP for EAD renewal as well. Could you please clarify? I always had thought that FP is related to 485 and not EAD. Am I wrong?
Also, not sure which Infopass center you went to, but my center happens to be San Antonio and I have already been there twice before for expediting EAD/AP for my wife and we also asked them about finger printing then and they said they are not an "authorized" center for that although the USCIS rep I spoke to told me to go there.
I have anyway taken another info pass appointment there again just to try my luck again.
wallpaper Delicious Flavor of Love
GCard_Dream
09-15 01:41 PM
You bring up a good point about the conference committee. When is the conference committee needed? Is it when bills are significantly different or even for slight differences. I thought conference is only needed if the bills are significantly different and needs to be negotiated between 2 houses. If only few provisions ( like ours) are different then can it be voted on by the house as it is without any conference and get a up or down vote? Now this all assumes that republicans are actually serious about some kind of relief to legal folks which I am seriously starting to doubt.
if they take the bill, they might listen to us and include our provisions in this bill because our provisions are part of the CIR bill which they passed it.
but they will make changes to 'secure act' and pass it in such a way it goes to conference committee (big chance of this going because senate wants 370 miles fence, house wants 700miles) and they wont have time for that committee now, so they will work on it next yr after elections. again after elections, it is diff game as you said. anyhow we caught in the middle of their game.
if they take the bill, they might listen to us and include our provisions in this bill because our provisions are part of the CIR bill which they passed it.
but they will make changes to 'secure act' and pass it in such a way it goes to conference committee (big chance of this going because senate wants 370 miles fence, house wants 700miles) and they wont have time for that committee now, so they will work on it next yr after elections. again after elections, it is diff game as you said. anyhow we caught in the middle of their game.
rcr_bulk
07-23 11:30 AM
Hi,
I am planning to renew my AP while in India. What is the procedure to do this?
My details :
Applied for H1 transfer - Dec 15,2008 - normal category -still pending
Ap - valid till Nov 2009
EAD - valid till Nov 2010.Using AC21 for working with the present employer.
I came back to India in March, after completing the project.
My present employer wants me to come to the US only when I have a project in hand.
Based in India, it is very difficult to find the project. Also, most of the projects need US citizen, GC holder, so very less projects available to the H1-B holders. Due to the recession, working on the contract is again a problem, since companies want the permanent employee, instead of contract employee.
I understand that presently working on H1 is difficult, since one should have the project in hand before applying for H1. Sometimes, at the port of entry they ask for paystubs for all the period, ask about the end client details etc. Sometimes people were sent back, since they didn't have all the details at the port of entry.
In this scenario, I am still not sure, if coming back to US will be a good option or not.
But I may need to come if the AP renewal is not possible from India.
In present scenario, If AP renewal is not possible from India, I will have to unnecessarily travel to US on existing AP (till Nov 09).I won't be able to come on H1-B, since my H1 application is still pending even after 6 months. How can one do AP renewal while in India?
Since in the present scenario,I may not get a job(since I don't have GC/citizenship),will it be advisable to come to US just to renew AP?
My ead is valid till Nov 2010,which means If I enter US before ead expiry,I will be able to work on ead.I have lost all the hope for H1 now,since it is more than 7 months.Of course for ead,is it possible to renew it while in India?
I don't have much finances now,so travel to US just to renew ap/ead in the hope of getting gc one day,is bit problematic.I am on EB3 labor 2006 , so GC process will take atleast 5 years.
Even if I reach US for AP renewal, I have to stay there for 2-3 months,till AP gets renewed.
I am not very confortable with this situation.
I just want to keep my GC process going by renewing ap and ead.Is there any way out of this?
I think the rule is , If you don't come to the US while the AP is valid, you abandon the I-485.
Can you give me some guidence on this?
Try applying online, if lucky you will get.
I am planning to renew my AP while in India. What is the procedure to do this?
My details :
Applied for H1 transfer - Dec 15,2008 - normal category -still pending
Ap - valid till Nov 2009
EAD - valid till Nov 2010.Using AC21 for working with the present employer.
I came back to India in March, after completing the project.
My present employer wants me to come to the US only when I have a project in hand.
Based in India, it is very difficult to find the project. Also, most of the projects need US citizen, GC holder, so very less projects available to the H1-B holders. Due to the recession, working on the contract is again a problem, since companies want the permanent employee, instead of contract employee.
I understand that presently working on H1 is difficult, since one should have the project in hand before applying for H1. Sometimes, at the port of entry they ask for paystubs for all the period, ask about the end client details etc. Sometimes people were sent back, since they didn't have all the details at the port of entry.
In this scenario, I am still not sure, if coming back to US will be a good option or not.
But I may need to come if the AP renewal is not possible from India.
In present scenario, If AP renewal is not possible from India, I will have to unnecessarily travel to US on existing AP (till Nov 09).I won't be able to come on H1-B, since my H1 application is still pending even after 6 months. How can one do AP renewal while in India?
Since in the present scenario,I may not get a job(since I don't have GC/citizenship),will it be advisable to come to US just to renew AP?
My ead is valid till Nov 2010,which means If I enter US before ead expiry,I will be able to work on ead.I have lost all the hope for H1 now,since it is more than 7 months.Of course for ead,is it possible to renew it while in India?
I don't have much finances now,so travel to US just to renew ap/ead in the hope of getting gc one day,is bit problematic.I am on EB3 labor 2006 , so GC process will take atleast 5 years.
Even if I reach US for AP renewal, I have to stay there for 2-3 months,till AP gets renewed.
I am not very confortable with this situation.
I just want to keep my GC process going by renewing ap and ead.Is there any way out of this?
I think the rule is , If you don't come to the US while the AP is valid, you abandon the I-485.
Can you give me some guidence on this?
Try applying online, if lucky you will get.
2011 wallpaper, Delicious
Apollon
06-30 12:16 AM
The answer is that there are restrictions on using experience gained in the position with the same company. The reason being that you cannot say that the minimum requirement for the position is a BA + 5 when you were hired for the position with less than a BA + 5 experience.
If you use experience gained with the same company the PERM application will be audited. One way to respond to the audit is by showing that you are filing for a different position than the one you gained the experience in and that the position for which you are filing is not substantially comparable to the position where you gained the experience.
My suggestion to you is that you use an experienced immigration attorney that you trust. The laws and procedures involved in filing a PERM application are so complicated and subtle that there are many immigration law attorneys who do not handle PERM cases. I know there are lots of companies that fumble their way through the process without an attorney and are lucky enough not to get audited, but that is just trusting your future to the luck of the draw.
Thank you very much for prompt and precise response. The reason you listed makes perfect sense. However, my situation is a little different and I have a couple of questions, directly related to your answer:
1. As I've mentioned, I do have close to 10 years of accumulated overall experience in my field - only half of it came before I graduated. I was already employed in this field before I started college and during it, and I have experience letters from employers to back that up. The only thing is, since I didn't have a degree, my job title didn't include "engineer" in it, although I was working same field, doing similar jobs. So, it's not that when this sponsor hired me for this position I did not have 5 years of relevant experience in the field - I did, it's just that half of it came before I got the degree and unlike DOL EB2 requirement - my sponsor did not have the restriction for this experience to be post graduate.
My first question is: will this argument work with DOL, saying that when the sponsor hired me I had over 5 years of relevant experience (I can prove it), just not post graduate experience and that is why the sponsor claims this job indeed requires B.Sc. + 5 years experience, although for them it's OK if the experience didnt come after I got the degree?
2. Hypothetically speaking, lets say I found another consulting company, which is willing to apply for my green card through EB2 track, without transferring my H1 visa and before I actually start working for them - will I be able to count these 15 months of experience with current sponsor, when the new company (who I don't work for) will be applying for my green card through EB2?
If you use experience gained with the same company the PERM application will be audited. One way to respond to the audit is by showing that you are filing for a different position than the one you gained the experience in and that the position for which you are filing is not substantially comparable to the position where you gained the experience.
My suggestion to you is that you use an experienced immigration attorney that you trust. The laws and procedures involved in filing a PERM application are so complicated and subtle that there are many immigration law attorneys who do not handle PERM cases. I know there are lots of companies that fumble their way through the process without an attorney and are lucky enough not to get audited, but that is just trusting your future to the luck of the draw.
Thank you very much for prompt and precise response. The reason you listed makes perfect sense. However, my situation is a little different and I have a couple of questions, directly related to your answer:
1. As I've mentioned, I do have close to 10 years of accumulated overall experience in my field - only half of it came before I graduated. I was already employed in this field before I started college and during it, and I have experience letters from employers to back that up. The only thing is, since I didn't have a degree, my job title didn't include "engineer" in it, although I was working same field, doing similar jobs. So, it's not that when this sponsor hired me for this position I did not have 5 years of relevant experience in the field - I did, it's just that half of it came before I got the degree and unlike DOL EB2 requirement - my sponsor did not have the restriction for this experience to be post graduate.
My first question is: will this argument work with DOL, saying that when the sponsor hired me I had over 5 years of relevant experience (I can prove it), just not post graduate experience and that is why the sponsor claims this job indeed requires B.Sc. + 5 years experience, although for them it's OK if the experience didnt come after I got the degree?
2. Hypothetically speaking, lets say I found another consulting company, which is willing to apply for my green card through EB2 track, without transferring my H1 visa and before I actually start working for them - will I be able to count these 15 months of experience with current sponsor, when the new company (who I don't work for) will be applying for my green card through EB2?
more...
javadeveloper
07-20 09:51 PM
OK agreed , when it's a law we should abide by them.But what are the other options available for B? He can't be covered under 245(K) so this option is ruled out.He needs to forget about GC? Will it be helpful if he contacts good lawyer any hope? Or just rely on luck?
glamzon
07-27 11:16 AM
Thanks
more...
narikg
06-15 11:09 PM
Passport should be valid for more than 6 months for applying I 485.
If somebody can answer that would begreat
If somebody can answer that would begreat
2010 time, Delicious
greenlight
02-18 05:02 PM
go to USCIS cases status page and create an online profile. Then you can add any immigration cases by case number to your protfolio. Once you do that, you can see the Last Updated date everytime you login. Everytime you get status change on your case, the LUD will change. But sometimes, LUD will change without any visible change on your status (known as "soft LUD").
Soft LUD can happen due to routine processing of your case (for example, they update results on FBI namecheck, fingerprint, etc.) or could be generated completely randomly due to general system updates. So LUDs should be taken with a grain of salt.
Hopefully that is a complete glossary of everything LUD.
Thank you very much!
Soft LUD can happen due to routine processing of your case (for example, they update results on FBI namecheck, fingerprint, etc.) or could be generated completely randomly due to general system updates. So LUDs should be taken with a grain of salt.
Hopefully that is a complete glossary of everything LUD.
Thank you very much!
more...
lost_in_migration
05-15 10:42 AM
/\/\
hair Rich, but delicious.
UniGum
09-21 02:45 PM
let us hope and pray bec will do something to finish this ASAP.... it's too much depressing....
more...
gbof
04-08 02:52 PM
Question regarding Current Immigration Status field on EAD renewal form:
I am applying for EAD renewal for my spouse. Currently she is on H-4 but I am soon planning to use EAD to start another job. I guess my spouse's status will also change from H-4 to AOS (I guess) at the same time. What should be current immigration status for my spouse when I have already started working on another job using EAD.
BTW, I used paper filing for both of us.
Thanks for your input.
I assume you are primary and she is derivative (as she is on H4). Now, If she has filed I-485, she is already in AOS irrespective of the fact that she is not using EAD.
I am applying for EAD renewal for my spouse. Currently she is on H-4 but I am soon planning to use EAD to start another job. I guess my spouse's status will also change from H-4 to AOS (I guess) at the same time. What should be current immigration status for my spouse when I have already started working on another job using EAD.
BTW, I used paper filing for both of us.
Thanks for your input.
I assume you are primary and she is derivative (as she is on H4). Now, If she has filed I-485, she is already in AOS irrespective of the fact that she is not using EAD.
hot Delicious From Flavor Of Love
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
more...
house Flavor of Love middot;
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.
tattoo -delicious-flavor-of-love-
texcan
02-20 04:10 PM
Thanks for answering my question. But is it not a huge difference between what I earn and what is mentioned in the LC (almost 40k) ??
GC is for future job, this pay is for skill set that will be used for FUTURE JOB,
it has nothing to do with your current job even if it is same job title.
Donot worry for stuff you donot have control over. It was done in past, you are fine, you cant do anything about it anyways now, or even if you had known about this in past.
LCA Salary is determined by Labor office, those great folks always come up with salary ...that no one pays.
Talk to your employer and ask about seeking higher salary. Most folks get huge jump ( in normal market) when they get their EAD since employer knows now they will move somewhere else.
Donot panic about everyting.
HTH
GC is for future job, this pay is for skill set that will be used for FUTURE JOB,
it has nothing to do with your current job even if it is same job title.
Donot worry for stuff you donot have control over. It was done in past, you are fine, you cant do anything about it anyways now, or even if you had known about this in past.
LCA Salary is determined by Labor office, those great folks always come up with salary ...that no one pays.
Talk to your employer and ask about seeking higher salary. Most folks get huge jump ( in normal market) when they get their EAD since employer knows now they will move somewhere else.
Donot panic about everyting.
HTH
more...
pictures delicious from flavor of love.
fromnaija
09-26 08:11 PM
Well, I don't see a problem with that. If you can file 485 without clearing 140, why can't you file 485 without clearing labor?
We should stay modest? There are a lot of us who have waited 4+ years for labor. I think that's enough modesty and patience.
Hey, "modest request" in my post does not translate to modesty and patience. Just thought I'd point that out.
We should stay modest? There are a lot of us who have waited 4+ years for labor. I think that's enough modesty and patience.
Hey, "modest request" in my post does not translate to modesty and patience. Just thought I'd point that out.
dresses Delicious Flavor of Love
Savi
07-07 09:47 PM
And here is the answer (unless I haven't digged back far enough!)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5990
BTW, I am curious as to who first proposed this idea.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5990
BTW, I am curious as to who first proposed this idea.
more...
makeup delicious from flavor of love.
saravanaraj.sathya
08-08 02:27 PM
Removed
girlfriend Delicious Flavor of Love
vinkapoor
10-24 04:29 PM
The online status of my EAD application indicated that EAD card was ordered and then approved back on October 01, 2007. I have still not received card in my mail. Anyone in same situation?
hairstyles delicious from flavor of love.
pappu
07-21 10:16 AM
You can consult any lawyer. To the best of my knowledge you dont need employer sponsorship if ur a PhD although i could be wrong.
Yes. Just having a Ph.D does not ensure a greencard. Employer based EB greencards are straightforward in process since employer only has to prove that no american citizen is available to do the job and the employer is willing to pay the salary as per market rates. This is established via labor certification process. The other routes of bypassing this are by showing that one is so expectional that US Government should allow them to stay permanently in this country. The various routes for this are if you can show if you have several publications, articles, patents awards at international level. Extraordinary ability people in Sciences, sports and arts can apply for it. The other avenue is the investor category. if you invest money and give employment to US citizens. You should go through USCIS website to get more details on various GC routes.
Yes. Just having a Ph.D does not ensure a greencard. Employer based EB greencards are straightforward in process since employer only has to prove that no american citizen is available to do the job and the employer is willing to pay the salary as per market rates. This is established via labor certification process. The other routes of bypassing this are by showing that one is so expectional that US Government should allow them to stay permanently in this country. The various routes for this are if you can show if you have several publications, articles, patents awards at international level. Extraordinary ability people in Sciences, sports and arts can apply for it. The other avenue is the investor category. if you invest money and give employment to US citizens. You should go through USCIS website to get more details on various GC routes.
shirish
10-11 11:07 AM
Don't worry abt the receipt date on the transfer notice. It is the date on which yor app was entered in the system, Your RN for 485 (which you have not received yet) will have the july 26th as RD and would have sept 26th as ND
Hi Friends,
We had sent our apps to Nebraska on July 26 but we received a transfer notice for 485 from vermont with a receipt date of Sept 26 and notice date of Oct 3.
I always thought the receipt date of my application is the day when our application reached the center.
Can someone help explaining this....
Thanks,
Hi Friends,
We had sent our apps to Nebraska on July 26 but we received a transfer notice for 485 from vermont with a receipt date of Sept 26 and notice date of Oct 3.
I always thought the receipt date of my application is the day when our application reached the center.
Can someone help explaining this....
Thanks,
joshraj
10-09 10:17 PM
At least got something today :)
Filed: July 27
Center: Neb
RD: Not Yet - Got Tranfer Notice - To Texas
FP: Not Yet
EAD: Not Yet
I140 - Pending at Nebraska
Filed: July 27
Center: Neb
RD: Not Yet - Got Tranfer Notice - To Texas
FP: Not Yet
EAD: Not Yet
I140 - Pending at Nebraska
No comments:
Post a Comment