Libra
09-10 10:51 AM
thank you glen and chiragmodi for your contributions. on receipt tracking thread people even thinking(may be later) of sacrificing animals for receipts but not contributing. so sick.
wallpaper aby shower cakes sayings.
Milind123
09-13 11:36 AM
Hello guys
For many of us, today is payday. What better day than today to make your first time contribution. I understand most of the money that we get is earmarked for something or the other. In a few days we again start our long wait for the next paycheck. On CNBC, I heard one commentator talking about consumers and how apt they were to rearrange their expenditure to the changing environment. For us, the environment is pretty static in the Green card world and there is very little change in the last several years.
So I urge you to rearrange your expenditure and contribute and see the environment change.
Please remember I will contribute $25 for each contribution of $100 from a member who is making this contribution for the first time.
Thanks for listening
Milind123
For many of us, today is payday. What better day than today to make your first time contribution. I understand most of the money that we get is earmarked for something or the other. In a few days we again start our long wait for the next paycheck. On CNBC, I heard one commentator talking about consumers and how apt they were to rearrange their expenditure to the changing environment. For us, the environment is pretty static in the Green card world and there is very little change in the last several years.
So I urge you to rearrange your expenditure and contribute and see the environment change.
Please remember I will contribute $25 for each contribution of $100 from a member who is making this contribution for the first time.
Thanks for listening
Milind123
gjoe
10-03 05:37 PM
Every year congress mandates that 140k immigrant visas may be issued. Lets say, in a particular year 200k applications were sent in, but only half of them could reach a stage where they could be approved (rest half are stuck in name check et al). Now you can approve only 100k which means that 40k visas which could have been used will go wasted for that year.
If visa numbers are assigned to cases as soon as the application is entered into the system based on the PD even if there case is not approved that year still they can get the visa whenever there case can be approved so effectively no visas are wasted in any year.
If visa numbers are assigned to cases as soon as the application is entered into the system based on the PD even if there case is not approved that year still they can get the visa whenever there case can be approved so effectively no visas are wasted in any year.
2011 aby shower cakes for
conchshell
06-10 10:57 AM
So July visa bulletin is out ... we will see comments with frustation and appeals to fight for the cause ... however, this is a prediction thread, so my prediction is that by next week, all affected people will accept the reality and will move on with their life waiting for August visa bulletin or for the next year quota. My purpose is not to offend anyone, but this is just the observation we all had in the past, so why this time around its going to be any different?
Now as far as those three bills are concerned ... at times I feel that they are just pacifiers to amuse the crying babies. We all can see that immigration related bill (fashion models, regional investors etc) are getting passed, but not the one's that we really want. Therefore hearings in the sub-committie and than in full hearings will go on till August, and afterwards presidential election will be the focus ... immigration reforms will take a back seat. New administration in 2009 will have more immediate priorities to fix the economy, war, etc. Immigration will eventually appear on the radar, but only after some time.
So only movement I can see in near future is EB3 to EB2 conversion. That's OK too. because everyone has a right to straddle the lanes. Out of that stampede, some will get approved, some will get rejected, and will create more mess in the system. But that's inevitable ... and if a mass transition happens, USCIS will have no other option to bring in yet another rule to make their life easy, we all can guess ... what that may be ... I think this is one of the reasons why USCIS does not allow 140 premium processing anymore. Now those who are hopefull for EB2, my message is that USCIS can very easily justify visa wastage this year because of the extra load they got from Citizenship applications. Personally, I do not have much hope of USCIS working efficiently.
I am not trying to spread pessimism, but just giving my predictions. We all need to think hard, as to how can we come out of this mess. Flower campaign worked once, but doesn't mean that its gonna be effective again and again.
Now as far as those three bills are concerned ... at times I feel that they are just pacifiers to amuse the crying babies. We all can see that immigration related bill (fashion models, regional investors etc) are getting passed, but not the one's that we really want. Therefore hearings in the sub-committie and than in full hearings will go on till August, and afterwards presidential election will be the focus ... immigration reforms will take a back seat. New administration in 2009 will have more immediate priorities to fix the economy, war, etc. Immigration will eventually appear on the radar, but only after some time.
So only movement I can see in near future is EB3 to EB2 conversion. That's OK too. because everyone has a right to straddle the lanes. Out of that stampede, some will get approved, some will get rejected, and will create more mess in the system. But that's inevitable ... and if a mass transition happens, USCIS will have no other option to bring in yet another rule to make their life easy, we all can guess ... what that may be ... I think this is one of the reasons why USCIS does not allow 140 premium processing anymore. Now those who are hopefull for EB2, my message is that USCIS can very easily justify visa wastage this year because of the extra load they got from Citizenship applications. Personally, I do not have much hope of USCIS working efficiently.
I am not trying to spread pessimism, but just giving my predictions. We all need to think hard, as to how can we come out of this mess. Flower campaign worked once, but doesn't mean that its gonna be effective again and again.
more...
smc
07-23 10:11 PM
Congratulations, enjoy it!
yabadaba
02-28 05:38 PM
bump...so united nations may post
more...
makemygc
07-06 12:39 PM
new from Aila.org
July 2, 2007, State Department Notice to USCIS Regarding EB Visa Availability
Has anybody got more info on this.
Does IV have AILA membership? Can we get this detail.
July 2, 2007, State Department Notice to USCIS Regarding EB Visa Availability
Has anybody got more info on this.
Does IV have AILA membership? Can we get this detail.
2010 aby shower cake designs for
spicy_guy
11-08 05:17 PM
If my Wife's employer starts GC for her on EB2, can my case be ported / interfile to her's? She is dependent on my GC application. :eek:
I have exact same Q. Any inputs?
I have exact same Q. Any inputs?
more...
anilnag
02-23 02:29 PM
i thought it meant that you had to wait 4 months after your priority date is current to have any expectation of adjudication... no?
In the guideline for interpreting the dates USCIS hasn't mentioned anything about PD being current. So I think they process applications regardless of PD being current or not
'The table shown below is intended to be a tool for customers to view our processing times. When applications and petitions are completed within our target timeframes, those timeframes will be shown (example: 3 months). If we are not meeting our target timeframes a date will be shown (example: April 16, 2008).'
In the guideline for interpreting the dates USCIS hasn't mentioned anything about PD being current. So I think they process applications regardless of PD being current or not
'The table shown below is intended to be a tool for customers to view our processing times. When applications and petitions are completed within our target timeframes, those timeframes will be shown (example: 3 months). If we are not meeting our target timeframes a date will be shown (example: April 16, 2008).'
hair cake designs ideas. aby
belmontboy
05-13 11:05 PM
� I-140 filed 05/04/2007
� I-140 approved 09/04/2007.� I-485 filed on 07/02/2007.
� Changed jobs on 07/14//2008 (after 1 year of pending I-485)
� Soft LUD on I-140 02/03/2009 (possible revocation of I-140 from my previous employer)
� got I-485 denial notice on 02/18/2009
� filed MTR on 02/27/2009
� MTR dismissed on 03/26/2009 (on the grounds that I-140 was denied on 09/04/2009)
� filed second MTR on 04/23/2009
� soft LUDs on the second MTR on 04/27/2009 and 04/28/2009
was ur first MTR denied in error?
as per you, your I-140 was never denied.
� I-140 approved 09/04/2007.� I-485 filed on 07/02/2007.
� Changed jobs on 07/14//2008 (after 1 year of pending I-485)
� Soft LUD on I-140 02/03/2009 (possible revocation of I-140 from my previous employer)
� got I-485 denial notice on 02/18/2009
� filed MTR on 02/27/2009
� MTR dismissed on 03/26/2009 (on the grounds that I-140 was denied on 09/04/2009)
� filed second MTR on 04/23/2009
� soft LUDs on the second MTR on 04/27/2009 and 04/28/2009
was ur first MTR denied in error?
as per you, your I-140 was never denied.
more...
jonty_11
07-06 01:09 PM
According to the State Department, from October 1, 2006 through May 30, 2007, the USCIS requested and was authorized the total EB visa numbers of 66,426. Between June 1 and the first few days of July (?), the USCIS requested and was authorized over 60,000 EB visa numbers, in approximately one month. Since it has been made clear by the USCIS that during the last weekend of June (2 days) the USCIS approved 25,000 EB 485 applications, apparently over 40,000 visa numbers were requested and authorized before the weekend. Obviously the 60,000 plus cases must thus have been approved (?) in one month
ok this is from Oh's website..pelase always quote source.
ok this is from Oh's website..pelase always quote source.
hot Baby Shower Cake
paskal
07-11 12:16 PM
is there any way, any way in this whole freakin process, that we can get some sort of explanation for eb3-I first hand from DOS or USCIS? i mean there needs to be some justification for the acts? i know there are laws to interpret these dates, but how do we know that those laws are interpreted correctly by DOS or USCIS? though i am in eb3-I , jan 2003, i personally know atleast 3 folks who are in 2002 - eb3-I. Can we get some sort of guidance here.
i will ask the iv folks who keep in touch with USCIS if they know anything. AFAIK though, USCIS has come out with no answers other than quoting the non availability of adequate visa numbers. if there is any more info i will let you know...
i will ask the iv folks who keep in touch with USCIS if they know anything. AFAIK though, USCIS has come out with no answers other than quoting the non availability of adequate visa numbers. if there is any more info i will let you know...
more...
house aby shower cakes sayings.
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:02 PM
California U.S. House results by county
Alameda - District 9 100.0% of 548 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Barbara Lee (I)
Dem 117,157 85.6%
John den Dulk
GOP 15,647 11.4%
James Eyer Lib 4,001 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 10 100.0% of 88 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 12,005 60.6%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,792 39.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 11 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 15,385 62.2%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 9,348 37.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 13 100.0% of 484 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Fortney Stark (I)
Dem 83,777 74.2%
George Bruno
GOP 29,127 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alpine - District 3 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bill Durston
Dem 258 49.8%
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 243 46.9%
Douglas Tuma Lib 14 2.7%
Michael Roskey PFP 3 0.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Amador - District 3 100.0% of 59 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 8,408 62.6%
Bill Durston
Dem 4,633 34.5%
Douglas Tuma Lib 277 2.1%
Michael Roskey PFP 121 0.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 2 100.0% of 139 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 23,958 56.0%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 17,053 39.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,743 4.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 4 100.0% of 36 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 5,380 54.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,830 39.0%
Dan Warren Lib 605 6.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Calaveras - District 3 100.0% of 30 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 9,092 60.4%
Bill Durston
Dem 5,332 35.4%
Douglas Tuma Lib 392 2.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 229 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Colusa - District 2 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,208 71.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,211 26.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 87 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 7 100.0% of 325 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 60,515 86.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 9,681 13.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 10 100.0% of 566 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 78,029 68.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 36,436 31.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 11 100.0% of 141 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 22,853 54.0%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 19,459 46.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Del Norte - District 1 90.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 3,439 57.1%
John Jones
GOP 2,398 39.8%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 106 1.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 85 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
El Dorado - District 4 100.0% of 150 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 25,650 50.5%
Charlie Brown
Dem 22,582 44.4%
Dan Warren Lib 2,590 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 317 56.7%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 242 43.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 19 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 28,106 58.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 19,783 41.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 21 100.0% of 265 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 37,210 65.8%
Steven Haze
Dem 17,353 30.7%
John Miller Grn 1,989 3.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Glenn - District 2 100.0% of 33 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 5,299 71.7%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,915 25.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 178 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Humboldt - District 1 100.0% of 152 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 26,617 65.8%
John Jones
GOP 11,910 29.4%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,327 3.3%
Timothy Stock PFP 611 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imperial - District 51 100.0% of 146 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 11,338 66.5%
Blake Miles
GOP 5,270 30.9%
Dan Litwin Lib 435 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Inyo - District 25 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 3,244 61.3%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,821 34.4%
David Erickson Lib 225 4.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Kern - District 22 100.0% of 442 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 81,725 74.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 28,059 25.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lake - District 1 100.0% of 52 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 9,546 62.8%
John Jones
GOP 4,959 32.6%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 362 2.4%
Timothy Stock PFP 335 2.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lassen - District 4 100.0% of 35 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,546 60.1%
Charlie Brown
Dem 2,544 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 479 6.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 22 100.0% of 42 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 8,577 63.2%
Sharon Beery
Dem 5,001 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 25 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 61,696 61.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 34,403 34.3%
David Erickson Lib 4,210 4.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 26 100.0% of 271 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 59,108 57.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 39,770 38.4%
Ted Brown Lib 3,098 3.0%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,646 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 27 100.0% of 348 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brad Sherman (I)
Dem 82,571 69.0%
Peter Hankwitz
GOP 37,163 31.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 28 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Howard Berman (I)
Dem 70,560 74.0%
Stanley Kesselman
GOP 18,210 19.1%
Byron De Lear Grn 3,340 3.5%
Kelley Ross Lib 3,190 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 29 100.0% of 369 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Adam Schiff (I)
Dem 79,001 63.6%
William Bodell
GOP 34,184 27.5%
William Paparian Grn 6,821 5.5%
Lynda Llamas PFP 2,244 1.8%
Jim Keller Lib 1,933 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 30 100.0% of 504 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Henry Waxman (I)
Dem 130,787 71.4%
David Jones
GOP 48,614 26.5%
Adele Cannon PFP 3,895 2.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 32 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Hilda Solis (I)
Dem 67,453 83.0%
Leland Faegre Lib 13,824 17.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 34 100.0% of 222 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lucille Roybal-Allard (I)
Dem 50,961 76.9%
Wayne Miller
GOP 15,272 23.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 35 100.0% of 295 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Maxine Waters (I)
Dem 72,114 83.7%
Gordon Mego AIP 7,314 8.5%
Paul Ireland Lib 6,761 7.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 9 100.0% of 548 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Barbara Lee (I)
Dem 117,157 85.6%
John den Dulk
GOP 15,647 11.4%
James Eyer Lib 4,001 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 10 100.0% of 88 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 12,005 60.6%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,792 39.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 11 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 15,385 62.2%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 9,348 37.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 13 100.0% of 484 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Fortney Stark (I)
Dem 83,777 74.2%
George Bruno
GOP 29,127 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alpine - District 3 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bill Durston
Dem 258 49.8%
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 243 46.9%
Douglas Tuma Lib 14 2.7%
Michael Roskey PFP 3 0.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Amador - District 3 100.0% of 59 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 8,408 62.6%
Bill Durston
Dem 4,633 34.5%
Douglas Tuma Lib 277 2.1%
Michael Roskey PFP 121 0.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 2 100.0% of 139 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 23,958 56.0%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 17,053 39.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,743 4.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 4 100.0% of 36 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 5,380 54.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,830 39.0%
Dan Warren Lib 605 6.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Calaveras - District 3 100.0% of 30 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 9,092 60.4%
Bill Durston
Dem 5,332 35.4%
Douglas Tuma Lib 392 2.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 229 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Colusa - District 2 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,208 71.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,211 26.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 87 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 7 100.0% of 325 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 60,515 86.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 9,681 13.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 10 100.0% of 566 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 78,029 68.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 36,436 31.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 11 100.0% of 141 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 22,853 54.0%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 19,459 46.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Del Norte - District 1 90.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 3,439 57.1%
John Jones
GOP 2,398 39.8%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 106 1.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 85 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
El Dorado - District 4 100.0% of 150 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 25,650 50.5%
Charlie Brown
Dem 22,582 44.4%
Dan Warren Lib 2,590 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 317 56.7%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 242 43.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 19 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 28,106 58.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 19,783 41.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 21 100.0% of 265 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 37,210 65.8%
Steven Haze
Dem 17,353 30.7%
John Miller Grn 1,989 3.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Glenn - District 2 100.0% of 33 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 5,299 71.7%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,915 25.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 178 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Humboldt - District 1 100.0% of 152 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 26,617 65.8%
John Jones
GOP 11,910 29.4%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,327 3.3%
Timothy Stock PFP 611 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imperial - District 51 100.0% of 146 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 11,338 66.5%
Blake Miles
GOP 5,270 30.9%
Dan Litwin Lib 435 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Inyo - District 25 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 3,244 61.3%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,821 34.4%
David Erickson Lib 225 4.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Kern - District 22 100.0% of 442 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 81,725 74.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 28,059 25.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lake - District 1 100.0% of 52 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 9,546 62.8%
John Jones
GOP 4,959 32.6%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 362 2.4%
Timothy Stock PFP 335 2.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lassen - District 4 100.0% of 35 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,546 60.1%
Charlie Brown
Dem 2,544 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 479 6.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 22 100.0% of 42 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 8,577 63.2%
Sharon Beery
Dem 5,001 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 25 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 61,696 61.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 34,403 34.3%
David Erickson Lib 4,210 4.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 26 100.0% of 271 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 59,108 57.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 39,770 38.4%
Ted Brown Lib 3,098 3.0%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,646 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 27 100.0% of 348 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brad Sherman (I)
Dem 82,571 69.0%
Peter Hankwitz
GOP 37,163 31.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 28 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Howard Berman (I)
Dem 70,560 74.0%
Stanley Kesselman
GOP 18,210 19.1%
Byron De Lear Grn 3,340 3.5%
Kelley Ross Lib 3,190 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 29 100.0% of 369 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Adam Schiff (I)
Dem 79,001 63.6%
William Bodell
GOP 34,184 27.5%
William Paparian Grn 6,821 5.5%
Lynda Llamas PFP 2,244 1.8%
Jim Keller Lib 1,933 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 30 100.0% of 504 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Henry Waxman (I)
Dem 130,787 71.4%
David Jones
GOP 48,614 26.5%
Adele Cannon PFP 3,895 2.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 32 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Hilda Solis (I)
Dem 67,453 83.0%
Leland Faegre Lib 13,824 17.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 34 100.0% of 222 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lucille Roybal-Allard (I)
Dem 50,961 76.9%
Wayne Miller
GOP 15,272 23.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 35 100.0% of 295 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Maxine Waters (I)
Dem 72,114 83.7%
Gordon Mego AIP 7,314 8.5%
Paul Ireland Lib 6,761 7.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
tattoo aby shower cakes sayings boy
gc_maine2
04-04 10:27 AM
:confused::confused:
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
Very good info, thanks for the posting. BUt its still not clear whether the spouse who is on EAD and does not work at all or for that matter 6 months in a given year, will she/he be eligible for setting up a S -corp??
Thanks
sree
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
Very good info, thanks for the posting. BUt its still not clear whether the spouse who is on EAD and does not work at all or for that matter 6 months in a given year, will she/he be eligible for setting up a S -corp??
Thanks
sree
more...
pictures aby shower cakes sayings. aby
minimalist
08-18 02:20 PM
Please continue to post your comments on the letter - the sooner we can all agree upon the content, the sooner we can start sending these out.
Also, is there a possibility of having a common meeting (all retrogressed EB3 candidates) with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren expressing our situation - just a thought.
Can't we request this info under Freedom of Information Act?
Also, is there a possibility of having a common meeting (all retrogressed EB3 candidates) with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren expressing our situation - just a thought.
Can't we request this info under Freedom of Information Act?
dresses pictures Baby Shower Cake Panels aby shower cakes sayings. shower cake
gconmymind
03-18 01:16 PM
Guys,
The H1B holder is ELIGIBLE for the stimulus package since he/she has SSN. He won't be able to claim the benefit for spouse if the spouse does not have SSN.
So just because spouse does not have SSN does not mean that the H1B holder becomes ineligible to receive the benefit. H1B will get $600 for himself/herself as long as he/she has filed IT returns.
Thanks
Can you show us the source of your information? It is very clearly written on the IRS website that if Married and filing jointly, both need to have SSN. If one spouse has ITIN, you will not get ANY rebate.
The H1B holder is ELIGIBLE for the stimulus package since he/she has SSN. He won't be able to claim the benefit for spouse if the spouse does not have SSN.
So just because spouse does not have SSN does not mean that the H1B holder becomes ineligible to receive the benefit. H1B will get $600 for himself/herself as long as he/she has filed IT returns.
Thanks
Can you show us the source of your information? It is very clearly written on the IRS website that if Married and filing jointly, both need to have SSN. If one spouse has ITIN, you will not get ANY rebate.
more...
makeup aby shower cakes sayings. aby shower cakes sayings.
coopheal
12-27 12:20 PM
Let's brainstorm on what we can do to remove country limits restrictions.
We will push for that in CIR if not prior.
We will push for that in CIR if not prior.
girlfriend aby shower cakes sayings.
isedkeem
03-06 10:11 AM
Sorry to hear about your ordeals. The good news is that EB3- ROW should move forward at a good clip in a few months - some estimates from a lawyer I talked to seem to indicate a jump into early 2006 by the end of this year, so hang in there and remember that it is darkest before dawn.
If you are keen on a backup, have you considered immigrating to New Zealand? It is a great option if you need a peaceful life and the weather is just like California (unlike Canada) and they have universal health care too. For people who have worked in the US for a few years in recognized fields, NZ is quite easy to immigrate to and very quick. Your English seems to be quite good so I don't see why you should be so disheartened. I guess this advice also applies to Indians who are frustrated with the delays.
Good luck!
Immigrating legally to the U.S seemed like a gold opportunity when I was offered to work here six years ago with an H1B visa. As a matter of fact, all my friends and family considered that it would have been crazy not to take advantage of the "opportunity" to live and work in the most developed country on Earth.
It's been six long years of challenges and learning experiences, but mostly it's been six years of financial distress, anxiety, paralysis and uncertainty.
We applied for PR four years ago, but in the process my wife and I have eaten all our saving in lawyer fees - and at this point we're just one more number in the long list of EB3 applicants who don't have the remotest idea of when visa numbers will become available so we can have a normal life. I don't even consider traveling to my country cause I don't have the money to pay for APs for me and my wife. My career has been also frozen since I cant take promotions to higher positions that will fall off the job description stated in my PERM.
If I had known about this ordeal, I would have never come to the US. I would have looked for other options, in countries that have a more sincere and generous immigration policies instead. If the US is not interested in allowing people to legally immigrate through visas based on employment, they simply should eliminate these visas and make clear that they don't want us to stay. Wouldn't that be easy for everyone?
I would return to my country if we didn't have a nasty political turmoil and the social decay that comes with it. Yet, I feel that the days go by and our lives are entangled in this absurd situation.
If you are keen on a backup, have you considered immigrating to New Zealand? It is a great option if you need a peaceful life and the weather is just like California (unlike Canada) and they have universal health care too. For people who have worked in the US for a few years in recognized fields, NZ is quite easy to immigrate to and very quick. Your English seems to be quite good so I don't see why you should be so disheartened. I guess this advice also applies to Indians who are frustrated with the delays.
Good luck!
Immigrating legally to the U.S seemed like a gold opportunity when I was offered to work here six years ago with an H1B visa. As a matter of fact, all my friends and family considered that it would have been crazy not to take advantage of the "opportunity" to live and work in the most developed country on Earth.
It's been six long years of challenges and learning experiences, but mostly it's been six years of financial distress, anxiety, paralysis and uncertainty.
We applied for PR four years ago, but in the process my wife and I have eaten all our saving in lawyer fees - and at this point we're just one more number in the long list of EB3 applicants who don't have the remotest idea of when visa numbers will become available so we can have a normal life. I don't even consider traveling to my country cause I don't have the money to pay for APs for me and my wife. My career has been also frozen since I cant take promotions to higher positions that will fall off the job description stated in my PERM.
If I had known about this ordeal, I would have never come to the US. I would have looked for other options, in countries that have a more sincere and generous immigration policies instead. If the US is not interested in allowing people to legally immigrate through visas based on employment, they simply should eliminate these visas and make clear that they don't want us to stay. Wouldn't that be easy for everyone?
I would return to my country if we didn't have a nasty political turmoil and the social decay that comes with it. Yet, I feel that the days go by and our lives are entangled in this absurd situation.
hairstyles mariah carey aby shower cake.
crazyghoda
03-02 11:46 AM
... its just an acknowledgement of reality as it stands today.
Of late I have started reading forums at R2ICLUB - R2ICLUB - Articles Front Page (http://www.r2iclubforums.com/) to get an idea of what it would take to go back to India. My last trip home was quite an eyeopener. Bombay has really improved a lot from what I saw last year and that much progress in a year was quite simply - amazing. I am guessing other metros in India (Delhi, B'lore, Hyd) are moving even faster since they dont have the typical politics that plagues Maharashtra.
Am I going to pack my bags and move tomorrow? Definitely not. But I'll definitely throw feelers out and see what kind of position I can get back home.
Good luck to all - whether you stay here or decide to go back or move to Canada or UK or EU or ....
Of late I have started reading forums at R2ICLUB - R2ICLUB - Articles Front Page (http://www.r2iclubforums.com/) to get an idea of what it would take to go back to India. My last trip home was quite an eyeopener. Bombay has really improved a lot from what I saw last year and that much progress in a year was quite simply - amazing. I am guessing other metros in India (Delhi, B'lore, Hyd) are moving even faster since they dont have the typical politics that plagues Maharashtra.
Am I going to pack my bags and move tomorrow? Definitely not. But I'll definitely throw feelers out and see what kind of position I can get back home.
Good luck to all - whether you stay here or decide to go back or move to Canada or UK or EU or ....
go_guy123
02-24 06:38 PM
I have MBA from an American university, do you think it's going to help me?
MBA is always better than a MS from US..guaranteed. MS doesn't fetch much. I know it first hand. I have MS from US and worked in India. I then got an MBA from Canada.
MBA is always better than a MS from US..guaranteed. MS doesn't fetch much. I know it first hand. I have MS from US and worked in India. I then got an MBA from Canada.
apb20
03-07 11:38 AM
Hello--could you please add a citation for Schumer's August 12, 2010 speech? Where was it intiially posted?
No comments:
Post a Comment