snathan
06-25 10:38 AM
Hi all,
I got my H1-B approved last year (through the lottery) and my start date was 10/01/07. My company was not doing well and so did not hire me until end of Nov. I have been continuously working since then. I did not receive any pay in 2007 and my company has been lagging behind on pay checks.
Problem: I have received pay checks only till Dec 15th, 2007. Till date, I have not received my W2 for 2007. My husband has filed a tax extension and we have time until 10/15 to file our tax now.
Questions:
1: Can my company issue a W2 for 2007 now ?
2: What are the impacts of not getting a W2 in a year, even though you have legally worked for a company ?
3: My husband has filed for his GC and is currently waiting for his I-140 and I-485 (both filed concurrently last summer). Will there be any problems in my I-485 because of my W2 issue ?
4: Is there a problem if my husband files a joint return without my W2 ? Is it even possible ? I do have my SSN and that is the only info that is being asked about me while filing the tax.
Thanks in advance.
You company must provide you the W2. Otherwise its illegal. Ask them to give you the W2 or contact IRS/DOL
I got my H1-B approved last year (through the lottery) and my start date was 10/01/07. My company was not doing well and so did not hire me until end of Nov. I have been continuously working since then. I did not receive any pay in 2007 and my company has been lagging behind on pay checks.
Problem: I have received pay checks only till Dec 15th, 2007. Till date, I have not received my W2 for 2007. My husband has filed a tax extension and we have time until 10/15 to file our tax now.
Questions:
1: Can my company issue a W2 for 2007 now ?
2: What are the impacts of not getting a W2 in a year, even though you have legally worked for a company ?
3: My husband has filed for his GC and is currently waiting for his I-140 and I-485 (both filed concurrently last summer). Will there be any problems in my I-485 because of my W2 issue ?
4: Is there a problem if my husband files a joint return without my W2 ? Is it even possible ? I do have my SSN and that is the only info that is being asked about me while filing the tax.
Thanks in advance.
You company must provide you the W2. Otherwise its illegal. Ask them to give you the W2 or contact IRS/DOL
wallpaper Jersey Shore Girls Become
WeShallOvercome
07-23 04:44 PM
well. won't you need the receipt when you travel..i thought one was required to carry the receipt when traveling internationally.
I'm going to ask my employer/lawyer for the receipt as I have to go out of country in the second week of October. But you never know, these guys don't care about your life.. They might still not give it to you... (Yeah, everyone knows I-485 is OUR application and they do not have a legal right to hold our receipt notices, but we are at their mercy for atleast 180 days)
I'm going to ask my employer/lawyer for the receipt as I have to go out of country in the second week of October. But you never know, these guys don't care about your life.. They might still not give it to you... (Yeah, everyone knows I-485 is OUR application and they do not have a legal right to hold our receipt notices, but we are at their mercy for atleast 180 days)
pnjbindia
12-11 12:44 PM
guys,
I have hired as an "Auditor" in 2002, which is also the title of my position in my LC. If I use AC21 for AUdit manager, which is considered to be in the same occupational classification, will it be a problem? My salary will probably be double of what is on the LC application.... your thoughts are appreciated..
I heard that a major change in salary with regards to AC21 can be a problem..and the the title "manager" will always excite IOs ...for RFEs...
I have hired as an "Auditor" in 2002, which is also the title of my position in my LC. If I use AC21 for AUdit manager, which is considered to be in the same occupational classification, will it be a problem? My salary will probably be double of what is on the LC application.... your thoughts are appreciated..
I heard that a major change in salary with regards to AC21 can be a problem..and the the title "manager" will always excite IOs ...for RFEs...
2011 jersey shore girls names.
johnamit
08-02 01:01 PM
I was wanted to know what is the best way to get something from India, please share if you had any experience.
thanks
thanks
more...
ArkBird
06-07 11:24 PM
www.msnbc.com
www.cnn.com
Cheers!
www.cnn.com
Cheers!
vphope
04-04 12:22 PM
Is attorney not in the loop?
Why didnt he get any info?
Are we supposed to be monitoring all these...:mad:
Why didnt he get any info?
Are we supposed to be monitoring all these...:mad:
more...
canmt
11-27 03:29 PM
H1B transfer.
2010 Sammi Jersey Shore in a ikini
ramboom1
04-09 03:14 PM
The CIR has gone into Senate Judiciary Committee. In my opinion, IV has worked as professional unit and acheived a lot. The task handled by IV core team is new just as it would be for any of us. IV need not even mention about the theorist. Let IV go about its task and there are so many people supporting it and contributing to it. IF CIR does not work out, there will be other options.
Good Luck and Best wishes.
Good Luck and Best wishes.
more...
smuggymba
10-08 05:40 PM
i sent u PM.
Mr.Smuggy - Easy buddy. Relax.
I am not as bright as you. I am trying to understand how it works. Since you know it all, what if Company A cant get me a job after i got GC and Company C is ?
Mr.Smuggy - Easy buddy. Relax.
I am not as bright as you. I am trying to understand how it works. Since you know it all, what if Company A cant get me a job after i got GC and Company C is ?
hair #39;Jersey Shore#39; Girls Clean Up
peacocklover
12-14 05:35 PM
In marriage it is common to have differences. When both parties dont yield and stick to their guns, it leads to rifts that may buildup over time and lead to the possibility of divorce. If both of you can clearly site 3 points on why you'd like divorce (articulate), then the problem is solvable.
If one of you is not sure why its happening (either you are too ignorant or you are totally missing other's point), obviously its your problem to know what keeps a marriage going. And if one of you just is hell bent on divorce, just coz "you felt like/were told -- like you deserve more than what you got", that is foolishness.
Young (immatured rather) people are quick to jump into divorce thoughts when things are not going well (when the initial attraction fades). You just hope that they stick around long enough through thick and thin, which will help them to discover the value of the other partner. Grass is always greener on the other side isnt it ? At the same time petty problems (for some people) such as bedroom troubles, can lead to divorces. Extra marital affairs happen often in this situation.
Indian culture makes marriage such a big ritual with so many ties that offers immense support (by social pressures or family obligations..) to fend off these manageable problems.
Take a break, pray god , be open with out any 'EGO', try to share your feelings and understand his feelings with your fresh mind. Also Try to have your respectful elders like your grand parents or your mom or father or his parents or his grand parents at home. Please don't take this worthless decision of divorce quickly unless he is a criminal trying to kill you.. it's very easy to break and very very hard to construct your relationship or very hard to face another relationship, we Indians give top most value to that relationship. Today's Western media which runs on the consumption, influences everybody's thoughts to go for consumption based system which forces to divide families and gain more from it. This is the idea of capitalists to loot from an individual. here is West, this damn media focuses to break the relationships to boost their consumption based economy with out thinking about their future generations.
As a last attempt, Please try to live with your parents for sometime to think fresh and make the decision.
See this video and try to understand what Mr.Venkatesh tells about the west and it's media strategy, think about Goddess Lakshmi what he is talking about in the end of this video .
Global Imbalance - An imminent Dollar Crisis (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4343898391323537541&hl=en)
If one of you is not sure why its happening (either you are too ignorant or you are totally missing other's point), obviously its your problem to know what keeps a marriage going. And if one of you just is hell bent on divorce, just coz "you felt like/were told -- like you deserve more than what you got", that is foolishness.
Young (immatured rather) people are quick to jump into divorce thoughts when things are not going well (when the initial attraction fades). You just hope that they stick around long enough through thick and thin, which will help them to discover the value of the other partner. Grass is always greener on the other side isnt it ? At the same time petty problems (for some people) such as bedroom troubles, can lead to divorces. Extra marital affairs happen often in this situation.
Indian culture makes marriage such a big ritual with so many ties that offers immense support (by social pressures or family obligations..) to fend off these manageable problems.
Take a break, pray god , be open with out any 'EGO', try to share your feelings and understand his feelings with your fresh mind. Also Try to have your respectful elders like your grand parents or your mom or father or his parents or his grand parents at home. Please don't take this worthless decision of divorce quickly unless he is a criminal trying to kill you.. it's very easy to break and very very hard to construct your relationship or very hard to face another relationship, we Indians give top most value to that relationship. Today's Western media which runs on the consumption, influences everybody's thoughts to go for consumption based system which forces to divide families and gain more from it. This is the idea of capitalists to loot from an individual. here is West, this damn media focuses to break the relationships to boost their consumption based economy with out thinking about their future generations.
As a last attempt, Please try to live with your parents for sometime to think fresh and make the decision.
See this video and try to understand what Mr.Venkatesh tells about the west and it's media strategy, think about Goddess Lakshmi what he is talking about in the end of this video .
Global Imbalance - An imminent Dollar Crisis (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4343898391323537541&hl=en)
more...
floridasun
01-26 05:00 PM
Charlotte, NC. decent Indian population and growing,nice weather, midway between NY and ATL
hot More Jersey Shore
Tshelar
06-15 06:05 PM
There is no law against multiple companies processing H1B for the same candidate at the same time. In past I had 2 Job offeres and both companies were processing my H1-B at the same time. Eventually I joined one of them. I do not see any issue for you to go back to your Home country and get the visa stamped as long as you are working and getting paid as per your approved H1-B petition.
Also if you never landed up working for the company for which your H1B transfered got denied then there is no issue at all, but if you did then I am not sure about the ramifications.
Also if you never landed up working for the company for which your H1B transfered got denied then there is no issue at all, but if you did then I am not sure about the ramifications.
more...
house “Jersey Shore” Girls In Bikini
niceguy
02-22 06:22 PM
For me they accepted interfiling and it introduced another problem. I had 140/485 filed with sub LC and before they looked at this concurrent file, another I140 with my original LC approved. Both are in EB2. We asked uscis to use my second approved I140 in place of pending I140 (lc sub). After 6 months, they looked at my concurrent file, sent rfe and denied my first I140 as they didn't agree my BITS-pilani MS is equal to US masters.
Then they looked at our request on interfiling that was sent 6 months before, then sent an intent to revoke on my approved I140 too with the same reason. Our attorney replied this time equating my AMIETE to US bachelors since they any way denied with Masters. We are still waiting after 2 months+.
The moral is, they accept the interfiling, but it takes time for them to put it in your file - some one said 2-3 months. You don't receive any ack on successful interfiling though.
Hope this helps.
Then they looked at our request on interfiling that was sent 6 months before, then sent an intent to revoke on my approved I140 too with the same reason. Our attorney replied this time equating my AMIETE to US bachelors since they any way denied with Masters. We are still waiting after 2 months+.
The moral is, they accept the interfiling, but it takes time for them to put it in your file - some one said 2-3 months. You don't receive any ack on successful interfiling though.
Hope this helps.
tattoo jersey shore girls without
newlife2
09-19 12:03 PM
Guys, I was just laid off and have efiled i539 3 days after the termination date for a status change to F2. Now working on the application letter. Do you think I should mention the layoff in the letter?
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
more...
pictures #39;Jersey Shore#39; Gals Take in
ski_dude12
07-16 09:33 AM
see Greg Siskind's blog :
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
Please change the misleading title. Already lot of people are frustrated with this flip-flop and posting something with a misleading title will make things worse.
Thanks,
-Ski
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
Please change the misleading title. Already lot of people are frustrated with this flip-flop and posting something with a misleading title will make things worse.
Thanks,
-Ski
dresses JWoww Jersey Shore in a ikini
smuggymba
09-14 02:38 PM
Is there a way to find all "active" members? If we're in the range 5000, then 10 per month for every user is good.
I saw many ppl in August who came in and posted that they got GC, not sure how many of them used IV and donated.
I saw many ppl in August who came in and posted that they got GC, not sure how many of them used IV and donated.
more...
makeup Sloshed? Jersey Shore#39;s Snooki
nyte_crawler
03-06 02:08 PM
I filed my I485 mid 2003. I missed the boat end of 2004, some where in 2005 and then in 2007 when my dates were current. My pd is in 2002. People who filed with me have been approved and they are ready for citizenship next year :mad:, while I got my 6th EAD approved
girlfriend Sorrentino of Jersey Shore
rsdang
11-20 10:53 AM
http://cli.gs/De4Z4u
BTW, what's scary about this memo..
Infact, I find it encouraging, that TSC is trying to facilitate the process one way or other, given their system deficiency.
Are we missing something?
I wish Nebraska did this too and for all forms not just I-140...
BTW, what's scary about this memo..
Infact, I find it encouraging, that TSC is trying to facilitate the process one way or other, given their system deficiency.
Are we missing something?
I wish Nebraska did this too and for all forms not just I-140...
hairstyles hairstyles Jersey Shore Girls
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
anilsal
10-30 04:42 PM
I understand what you are saying but its difficult for people to check their typos when posting online. I mean not every one has that time when they are juggling things. It's not M$oft outlook right :) B T W, I am not the one who posted it.
I think if the person misspelt Stanford once, it is fine. If there have been multiple references and he misspelt all of them, then there is a problem.
My opinion (and mine only) is that if we claim high skills/higher education for our immigration, then we should be able to type decent english even with eyes closed. ;)
I think if the person misspelt Stanford once, it is fine. If there have been multiple references and he misspelt all of them, then there is a problem.
My opinion (and mine only) is that if we claim high skills/higher education for our immigration, then we should be able to type decent english even with eyes closed. ;)
surabhi
09-16 10:21 PM
surabhi,
At the Port of Entry, were you asked if you are still working for the GC sponsoring employer? Did you have to show any documentation from new employer?
I am planning to travel to India in December on AP. I recently changed jobs.
Thanks in advance.
THe IO asked who filed my green card. He didnt followup to ask if I am still working with the original employer or not.
At the Port of Entry, were you asked if you are still working for the GC sponsoring employer? Did you have to show any documentation from new employer?
I am planning to travel to India in December on AP. I recently changed jobs.
Thanks in advance.
THe IO asked who filed my green card. He didnt followup to ask if I am still working with the original employer or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment