images hair love quotes for your 
chanduv23
04-28 08:49 PM
AC21 is a law. However, USCIS not yet published the regulation since year 2000, that binds everyone. All these memos since 2000, are internal to USCIS and not binding. They are very clear in the memo that revokation (except on fraud) of an already approved 140 by the petitioner, after 180 days of pending of 485, will not stop the approval of 485, if employee changes to similar occupation. This is just a non bining internal standard of USCIS. It does not have teeth, as it is not a public regulation. However, this internal standard can be changed by any time with/without public notice or through a regulation. Also, one should remember that, they mentioned in one of their memos that, regulation will be much tougher than memo.
Therefore, as some one is mentioned that, an approved immigrant visa pettion should be always available at the time of issuing GC. That is also a law. This law also need to be met at the time of approval of 485. Therfore AC21 and requirement for availability of approved 140 is two different and counteracting issues.
In practical situation, the employee has no control over 140 in any stage as it is employer's petition. Therefore, if employee leaves the job as per the AC21 law, employer verywell withdraw the 140 even after 180 days of 485 pending and create a situation of unavailability of approved immigrat visa petion for the employee. Therefore, in the final regulation they will make a rule that favours the employee, if everything was bonafide. It is like a aboundened spouse in family catagory.
I think, USCIS is currently taking the tough standard to weed out the consulting compaines (to put a leash on GC factories/body shoppers), as they are the one mostly abusing the EB system. Only those people working in GC factories need to worry. It may be mainly due the current economic situation. I feel thats why they are delaying the regulation. Others need not worry.
Well, 485 denials on ac21 where 140 was revoked has always been happening.
Your interpretation might be right about consulting companies but these denials not necessarily happening to people in consulting companies, they happen to anyone whose 140 was revoked.
Therefore, as some one is mentioned that, an approved immigrant visa pettion should be always available at the time of issuing GC. That is also a law. This law also need to be met at the time of approval of 485. Therfore AC21 and requirement for availability of approved 140 is two different and counteracting issues.
In practical situation, the employee has no control over 140 in any stage as it is employer's petition. Therefore, if employee leaves the job as per the AC21 law, employer verywell withdraw the 140 even after 180 days of 485 pending and create a situation of unavailability of approved immigrat visa petion for the employee. Therefore, in the final regulation they will make a rule that favours the employee, if everything was bonafide. It is like a aboundened spouse in family catagory.
I think, USCIS is currently taking the tough standard to weed out the consulting compaines (to put a leash on GC factories/body shoppers), as they are the one mostly abusing the EB system. Only those people working in GC factories need to worry. It may be mainly due the current economic situation. I feel thats why they are delaying the regulation. Others need not worry.
Well, 485 denials on ac21 where 140 was revoked has always been happening.
Your interpretation might be right about consulting companies but these denials not necessarily happening to people in consulting companies, they happen to anyone whose 140 was revoked.
wallpaper love quotes to a oyfriend.
bfadlia
01-08 04:02 PM
They moved from 8/1/2002 to 9/22/2002.
According to the I485 inventory they published, there is what.. 400 cases between these two date, why only move 400 cases per month = 4800 per year when the annual quota for EB3 ROW is what.. around 30,000?
Never mind the spillover, can ROW just get its normal quota at least?
According to the I485 inventory they published, there is what.. 400 cases between these two date, why only move 400 cases per month = 4800 per year when the annual quota for EB3 ROW is what.. around 30,000?
Never mind the spillover, can ROW just get its normal quota at least?
raysaikat
06-11 03:30 AM
Hi Gurus,
I need an advice from you.
The situation:
-- Involved in a collision few months back. As I had rear ended the vehicle, as per the investigation, it was found it was my fault(80% mine - 20% others)
-- Now after more than 18 months, I get a law suit for 3.25 million dollars(. This was served against ppl who were involved. Right now my I have my EAD and AP and maintaining H1 status.
So what are my options now?
1. Check with attorney and start defending..?
2. pack the bags and go back to my country ? If so, will there be any issues in coming back again, say after 3,4 years?
3. What about my GC?
Any help would be greatly appreciated and I guess it would be a biggest decision of my life ..
Thx,
PD is Nov 2006.
What is the lawsuit about? Is it by the insurance company suspecting some kind of scam?
In any case, you must defend yourself. If you just run away, then you might find yourself in 3 million dollar debt and all your assets frozen, even in India (assuming you are not planning to live the life of a fugitive!).
I need an advice from you.
The situation:
-- Involved in a collision few months back. As I had rear ended the vehicle, as per the investigation, it was found it was my fault(80% mine - 20% others)
-- Now after more than 18 months, I get a law suit for 3.25 million dollars(. This was served against ppl who were involved. Right now my I have my EAD and AP and maintaining H1 status.
So what are my options now?
1. Check with attorney and start defending..?
2. pack the bags and go back to my country ? If so, will there be any issues in coming back again, say after 3,4 years?
3. What about my GC?
Any help would be greatly appreciated and I guess it would be a biggest decision of my life ..
Thx,
PD is Nov 2006.
What is the lawsuit about? Is it by the insurance company suspecting some kind of scam?
In any case, you must defend yourself. If you just run away, then you might find yourself in 3 million dollar debt and all your assets frozen, even in India (assuming you are not planning to live the life of a fugitive!).
2011 you poems your boyfriend.
fasterthanlight�
06-07 04:46 PM
Nah i think a redesign of the case would be a mod. which is why i guess the linuxpod and the game boy one's aren't allowed......
more...
psk79
07-18 12:24 PM
Mine.
Date Delivered To USCIS: July 2
Time Delivered To USCIS: 10.30 AM
Service Center: NSC
Rejected: Don't Know
Date Delivered To USCIS: July 2
Time Delivered To USCIS: 10.30 AM
Service Center: NSC
Rejected: Don't Know
smisachu
08-01 05:34 PM
Hi smisachu,
Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you referring to "Flash Trading"
or the whole of HFT?
Yes Flash trading, ELP (enhanced liquidity program), direct access trading and even other program trading. The programs seek out discreet blocks that are being routed into the market and front run them. The main culprit according to many is GS. And to acheive a significant alpha the size and leverage are huge. Some program with a bug will dump a lot of shares on the market some day and before any one can react. Here is an article on some info that was made available only to bloomberg users.
"Lime Brokerage: "The Next 'Long Term Capital' Meltdown Will Happen In
A Five-Minute Time Period."
Posted by Tyler Durden at 11:25 AM
A recent Bloomberg piece that for some reason was made available only
to terminal subscribers, provides a very interesting discussion on the
dangers of sponsored access, how the associated pre-trade vs post-
trade monitoring deliberations by "regulators" will influence short
selling curbs, and not surprisingly, the desire by Goldman to not only
dominate this yet another aspect of high-frequency trading, but to
dictate market policy at will.
What is sponsored access:
In sponsored access, a broker-dealer lends its market participation
identification (MPID) number to clients for them to trade on exchanges
without going through the broker's trading system, to avoid slowing
down the execution. That places responsibility on the broker-dealer to
make sure the participant abides by securities regulations, and that
its trading, which can involve hundreds or thousands of orders a
second, does not run amok.
Is it thus surprising, that none other than Goldman Sachs is muscling
its way into providing not only a sponsored access platform to its
clients, but a new form of sponsored access that needs the blessing of
regulators:
Wall Street heavyweight Goldman Sachs, now launching its own sponsored-
access service to lend clients its identification to access securities
exchanges directly, said last week it favors monitoring client orders
prior to execution.
"Our view is that there is a real need for pre-trade checks in the use
of sponsored access to fulfill [broker-dealers'] regulatory
responsibilities," said Greg Tusar, managing director at Goldman.
Goldman's stand in favor of pre-trade instead of post-trade monitoring
of sponsored clients' activity is one side of a debate in which
regulators may choose a middle ground. The regulators' decision on how
to monitor sponsored access may also influence their deliberations on
restricting short sales.
What is the difference between pre-trade and post-trade monitoring? In
brief:
Pre-trade
Compliant with Reg SHO
Nip problems before they happen
View activity across exchanges
Post-trade
Faster order executions
Pre-trade systems still fallible
And another tidbit:
In traditional sponsored-access arrangements, a broker-dealer
determines a client's suitability to access market centers directly
and then allows the client to trade without monitoring its individual
orders prior to execution.
In other words, the Goldman endorsed pre-trade approach will allow
"monitoring of individual orders prior to execution." Whether or not
pre-trade checks provide the capacity to observe not just wholesale
exchange activity in the context of sponsored access but from a much
broader market angle is a discussion for another time, although this
could be one place where Sergey Aleynikov could shed an infinite
amount of light, especially as pertains to Goldman's sponsored-access
service. Conveniently, his gag order will prevent him from saying much
if anything until such time as there is an appetizing settlement to
keep him gagged in perpetuity. The bottom line is that with a pre-
trade environment, the sponsored access providers will be able to have
the potential to front run all those who use their platforms. The
residual question of how far they go to comply with regulations to
prevent this from happening, and remain true to their ethics standards
is also a topic for another day.
Going back to the topic at hand. Here is why sponsored access could
easily be quite a bother to capital markets sooner rather than later:
Unchecked errors or unintended repeat orders could deplete broker-
dealers' capital, and potentially wreak havoc in the broader market.
Concerns have arisen, however, about whether all broker-dealers are
able to fulfill that duty in today's electronic trading environment,
and according to which standards.
And here Goldman chimes in to not only promote their proposed
architecture but to expound on the virtues of pre-trade checking.
"In the case of high-frequency trading, in particular guarding against
technology failures, oversized orders and other situations where
there's potentially systemic market impact, we believe strongly that
pre-trade checks are a prerequisite," Tusar says.
Nasdaq's proposal as well as Securities and Exchange Commission
officials' speeches a few months ago appeared to lean toward
bolstering the traditional approach.
"We don't believe that's strong enough or what the regulators want
now, because of the potentially dire consequences, and because we-as
broker-dealers-bear much of that risk," Tusar says.
Now the reason why this is very relevant in the context of not just
potential front running, but also market structure is that Regulation
SHO, which is the primary regulatory framework for short selling (and
the purvey of potential Uptick Rule reinstatement, which will happen
once the market is allowed to hit a bid) is a post-trade
architecture.
Wedbush [Morgan] routinely tests clients' systems to ensure they are
compliant with Reg SHO. In addition, he says, the brokerage sets
limits on clients available locates-as well as credit and trading
limits--before the start of each trading day that its system tracks,
prohibiting shorts without locates and providing a type of pre-trade
check.
Or as has recently become the case, seeing rolling buy ins in the
middle of the day as borrowable shares in even the most liquid stocks
mysteriously disappear (look at today's market action for yet another
blatant example of this practice).
Anticipating the regulators' likely response, one should not be
surprised to see them siding with Goldman and against shorters:
As the SEC also seeks to appease investor concerns over rampant short
selling, especially naked short selling, new sponsored-access
standards may provide part of the solution. Given that day-traders may
be the last remaining culprits of such activity,, increasing and
standardizing scrutiny over their trading may reduce uncovered (and
illegal) shorts even further.
How about appeasing concerns over rampant, unjustified buying? When
will the downtick buy rule be implemented? But we jest.
And I digress again. Why should all this be concerning to advocates of
stability of high-frequency trading:
The mother of all concerns is a sponsored firm's algorithm going awry
and executing thousands of problematic trades across a range of
securities and market centers.
Well, this is not really a problem when it happens to the upside as
has been the case for months now - it is only a threat when Joe
Sixpack's 401(k) may be impacted, i.e., to the downside.
And here is where a SEC Comment submitted by broker Lime Brokerage is
a very troubling must read by all who naively claim that High-
frequency trading is a boon to an efficient market (which doesn't
provide . Well, yes and no - it is, until such moment that it causes
the market to, literally, break. I will post a critical excerpt from
the Lime submission, and leave the rest to our readers' independent
analysis:
Lime's familiarity with high speed trading allows us to benchmark some
of the fastest computer traders on the planet, and we have seen CDT
(Computerized Day Trading) order placement rates easily exceed 1,000
orders per second. Should a CDT algorithm go awry, where a large
amount of orders are placed erroneously or where the orders should not
have passed order validation, the Sponsor will incur a substantial
timelag in addressing the issue. From the moment the Sponsor�s
representative detects the problem until the time the problematic
orders can be addressed by the Sponsor, at least two mintues will have
passed. The Sponsor�s only tools to control Sponsored Access flow are
to log into the Trading Center�s website (if available), place a phone
call to the Trading Center, or call the Sponsee to disable trading and
cancel these erroneous orders � all sub-optimal processes which
require human intervention. With a two minute delay to cancel these
erroneous orders, 120,000 orders could have gone into the market and
been executed, even though an order validation problem was detected
previously. At 1,000 shares per order and an average price of $20 per
share, $2.4 billion of improper trades could be executed in this short
timeframe. The sheer volume of activity in a concentrated period of
time is extremely disruptive to the process of maintaining a �fair and
orderly� market. This shortcoming needs to be addressed if the
practice of Naked Access is going to be permitted to continue;
otherwise, the next �Long Term Capital� meltdown will happen in a five-
minute time period.
Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you referring to "Flash Trading"
or the whole of HFT?
Yes Flash trading, ELP (enhanced liquidity program), direct access trading and even other program trading. The programs seek out discreet blocks that are being routed into the market and front run them. The main culprit according to many is GS. And to acheive a significant alpha the size and leverage are huge. Some program with a bug will dump a lot of shares on the market some day and before any one can react. Here is an article on some info that was made available only to bloomberg users.
"Lime Brokerage: "The Next 'Long Term Capital' Meltdown Will Happen In
A Five-Minute Time Period."
Posted by Tyler Durden at 11:25 AM
A recent Bloomberg piece that for some reason was made available only
to terminal subscribers, provides a very interesting discussion on the
dangers of sponsored access, how the associated pre-trade vs post-
trade monitoring deliberations by "regulators" will influence short
selling curbs, and not surprisingly, the desire by Goldman to not only
dominate this yet another aspect of high-frequency trading, but to
dictate market policy at will.
What is sponsored access:
In sponsored access, a broker-dealer lends its market participation
identification (MPID) number to clients for them to trade on exchanges
without going through the broker's trading system, to avoid slowing
down the execution. That places responsibility on the broker-dealer to
make sure the participant abides by securities regulations, and that
its trading, which can involve hundreds or thousands of orders a
second, does not run amok.
Is it thus surprising, that none other than Goldman Sachs is muscling
its way into providing not only a sponsored access platform to its
clients, but a new form of sponsored access that needs the blessing of
regulators:
Wall Street heavyweight Goldman Sachs, now launching its own sponsored-
access service to lend clients its identification to access securities
exchanges directly, said last week it favors monitoring client orders
prior to execution.
"Our view is that there is a real need for pre-trade checks in the use
of sponsored access to fulfill [broker-dealers'] regulatory
responsibilities," said Greg Tusar, managing director at Goldman.
Goldman's stand in favor of pre-trade instead of post-trade monitoring
of sponsored clients' activity is one side of a debate in which
regulators may choose a middle ground. The regulators' decision on how
to monitor sponsored access may also influence their deliberations on
restricting short sales.
What is the difference between pre-trade and post-trade monitoring? In
brief:
Pre-trade
Compliant with Reg SHO
Nip problems before they happen
View activity across exchanges
Post-trade
Faster order executions
Pre-trade systems still fallible
And another tidbit:
In traditional sponsored-access arrangements, a broker-dealer
determines a client's suitability to access market centers directly
and then allows the client to trade without monitoring its individual
orders prior to execution.
In other words, the Goldman endorsed pre-trade approach will allow
"monitoring of individual orders prior to execution." Whether or not
pre-trade checks provide the capacity to observe not just wholesale
exchange activity in the context of sponsored access but from a much
broader market angle is a discussion for another time, although this
could be one place where Sergey Aleynikov could shed an infinite
amount of light, especially as pertains to Goldman's sponsored-access
service. Conveniently, his gag order will prevent him from saying much
if anything until such time as there is an appetizing settlement to
keep him gagged in perpetuity. The bottom line is that with a pre-
trade environment, the sponsored access providers will be able to have
the potential to front run all those who use their platforms. The
residual question of how far they go to comply with regulations to
prevent this from happening, and remain true to their ethics standards
is also a topic for another day.
Going back to the topic at hand. Here is why sponsored access could
easily be quite a bother to capital markets sooner rather than later:
Unchecked errors or unintended repeat orders could deplete broker-
dealers' capital, and potentially wreak havoc in the broader market.
Concerns have arisen, however, about whether all broker-dealers are
able to fulfill that duty in today's electronic trading environment,
and according to which standards.
And here Goldman chimes in to not only promote their proposed
architecture but to expound on the virtues of pre-trade checking.
"In the case of high-frequency trading, in particular guarding against
technology failures, oversized orders and other situations where
there's potentially systemic market impact, we believe strongly that
pre-trade checks are a prerequisite," Tusar says.
Nasdaq's proposal as well as Securities and Exchange Commission
officials' speeches a few months ago appeared to lean toward
bolstering the traditional approach.
"We don't believe that's strong enough or what the regulators want
now, because of the potentially dire consequences, and because we-as
broker-dealers-bear much of that risk," Tusar says.
Now the reason why this is very relevant in the context of not just
potential front running, but also market structure is that Regulation
SHO, which is the primary regulatory framework for short selling (and
the purvey of potential Uptick Rule reinstatement, which will happen
once the market is allowed to hit a bid) is a post-trade
architecture.
Wedbush [Morgan] routinely tests clients' systems to ensure they are
compliant with Reg SHO. In addition, he says, the brokerage sets
limits on clients available locates-as well as credit and trading
limits--before the start of each trading day that its system tracks,
prohibiting shorts without locates and providing a type of pre-trade
check.
Or as has recently become the case, seeing rolling buy ins in the
middle of the day as borrowable shares in even the most liquid stocks
mysteriously disappear (look at today's market action for yet another
blatant example of this practice).
Anticipating the regulators' likely response, one should not be
surprised to see them siding with Goldman and against shorters:
As the SEC also seeks to appease investor concerns over rampant short
selling, especially naked short selling, new sponsored-access
standards may provide part of the solution. Given that day-traders may
be the last remaining culprits of such activity,, increasing and
standardizing scrutiny over their trading may reduce uncovered (and
illegal) shorts even further.
How about appeasing concerns over rampant, unjustified buying? When
will the downtick buy rule be implemented? But we jest.
And I digress again. Why should all this be concerning to advocates of
stability of high-frequency trading:
The mother of all concerns is a sponsored firm's algorithm going awry
and executing thousands of problematic trades across a range of
securities and market centers.
Well, this is not really a problem when it happens to the upside as
has been the case for months now - it is only a threat when Joe
Sixpack's 401(k) may be impacted, i.e., to the downside.
And here is where a SEC Comment submitted by broker Lime Brokerage is
a very troubling must read by all who naively claim that High-
frequency trading is a boon to an efficient market (which doesn't
provide . Well, yes and no - it is, until such moment that it causes
the market to, literally, break. I will post a critical excerpt from
the Lime submission, and leave the rest to our readers' independent
analysis:
Lime's familiarity with high speed trading allows us to benchmark some
of the fastest computer traders on the planet, and we have seen CDT
(Computerized Day Trading) order placement rates easily exceed 1,000
orders per second. Should a CDT algorithm go awry, where a large
amount of orders are placed erroneously or where the orders should not
have passed order validation, the Sponsor will incur a substantial
timelag in addressing the issue. From the moment the Sponsor�s
representative detects the problem until the time the problematic
orders can be addressed by the Sponsor, at least two mintues will have
passed. The Sponsor�s only tools to control Sponsored Access flow are
to log into the Trading Center�s website (if available), place a phone
call to the Trading Center, or call the Sponsee to disable trading and
cancel these erroneous orders � all sub-optimal processes which
require human intervention. With a two minute delay to cancel these
erroneous orders, 120,000 orders could have gone into the market and
been executed, even though an order validation problem was detected
previously. At 1,000 shares per order and an average price of $20 per
share, $2.4 billion of improper trades could be executed in this short
timeframe. The sheer volume of activity in a concentrated period of
time is extremely disruptive to the process of maintaining a �fair and
orderly� market. This shortcoming needs to be addressed if the
practice of Naked Access is going to be permitted to continue;
otherwise, the next �Long Term Capital� meltdown will happen in a five-
minute time period.
more...
starscream
09-17 10:25 AM
as well as on the chat also please thanks
2010 happy birthday quotes for your
sledge_hammer
01-31 09:46 AM
- from immigration-law.com
After we reported this news, we learned that there were some readers who gravely misunderstood the "final" rule making process. They were confused with the "proposed" rule making process. In the final rule making process, there is no comment period before the rule takes effect. On the date when the final rule is published in the federal register, it becomes a binding rule and the rule-making process is complete. Certain provisions in the final rule may take effect on certain specific later date or dates, but the rule itself becomes a binding law on the date of publication of the rule in the federal register. Accordingly, unless the DOL changed the proposed rule, substitution of the beneficiary of the labor certification will be eliminated on the date of publication which includes the substitution of the beneficiary in the pending labor certification by amendment as well as the substitution of the beneficiary in the approved labor certification. For those who filed the substitution I-140 petition, the proposed rule provided that only "substitution approved" on the date of publication of the rule would survive. Substitution approved can be interpreted to mean approval of the substitution I-140 petition. For the 45-day validity of the certified labor certification, under the proposed rule, the certified labor certification on the date of publication was supposed to have 45 days to file the I-140 petitions. For the labor certifications which are approved after publication of the final rule must file the I-140 petitions within 45 days from the date of certification.
The DOL could have changed part of the proposed rules in the final rule and the readers are cautioned to wait for the release of the final rule before they jump into any conclusion and take a misguided action.
1. I was wondering how this rule would affect people like me. My labor has been approved and its been about 50 days. I will be applying for I-140 this week. Will this 45-day rule affect me?
2. If what is stated in immigrationportal about the labor substitution is true, then we don't have any real benefit from the this rule, because all labors certified before the implementation of this rule are not bound by the 45-days time constraint?!? All the so called desi companies may not sell the labors, but would not spend money to cancel it either. So those old labors are going waste as they are still active.
After we reported this news, we learned that there were some readers who gravely misunderstood the "final" rule making process. They were confused with the "proposed" rule making process. In the final rule making process, there is no comment period before the rule takes effect. On the date when the final rule is published in the federal register, it becomes a binding rule and the rule-making process is complete. Certain provisions in the final rule may take effect on certain specific later date or dates, but the rule itself becomes a binding law on the date of publication of the rule in the federal register. Accordingly, unless the DOL changed the proposed rule, substitution of the beneficiary of the labor certification will be eliminated on the date of publication which includes the substitution of the beneficiary in the pending labor certification by amendment as well as the substitution of the beneficiary in the approved labor certification. For those who filed the substitution I-140 petition, the proposed rule provided that only "substitution approved" on the date of publication of the rule would survive. Substitution approved can be interpreted to mean approval of the substitution I-140 petition. For the 45-day validity of the certified labor certification, under the proposed rule, the certified labor certification on the date of publication was supposed to have 45 days to file the I-140 petitions. For the labor certifications which are approved after publication of the final rule must file the I-140 petitions within 45 days from the date of certification.
The DOL could have changed part of the proposed rules in the final rule and the readers are cautioned to wait for the release of the final rule before they jump into any conclusion and take a misguided action.
1. I was wondering how this rule would affect people like me. My labor has been approved and its been about 50 days. I will be applying for I-140 this week. Will this 45-day rule affect me?
2. If what is stated in immigrationportal about the labor substitution is true, then we don't have any real benefit from the this rule, because all labors certified before the implementation of this rule are not bound by the 45-days time constraint?!? All the so called desi companies may not sell the labors, but would not spend money to cancel it either. So those old labors are going waste as they are still active.
more...
smisachu
01-21 10:20 PM
smisachu,
Thanks for that Info, here is my requirement
I am on H1B and plan to have my own company as a trader to trade stocks.
I will be the owner and wish to draw profits, may not have employee in my company for now(please advice, if i need to)
I need inputs to know what type of company should that be (LLC, S Corporation.. e.t.c.)?
Is it advisable to have a GC holder/citizen as partner?
What form of income should i withdraw(salary/profits/dividends/Interest..) How is the income considered when i file my taxes?
I am not aware of anyone who can sponsor my H1 as a trader atleast for now, if i get the right opportunity, i am open for that
Thanks again
1. If you want to trade stocks only, with your own capital ,then set up a LLC or C corp. If you trade other people�s capital then maybe become a RIA.
2. If you form a llc you become a employee of your own company (say managing director, CIO etc) and sponsor your own H1.
3. You can have a fixed salary and a draw, which is what a typical trader gets. Draw is a percentage of the profits you generate by trading.
4. You don�t need a gc/Citizen as a partner.
5. The company/fund makes money by trading securities and the earnings are retained by the company, you draw salary and bonus.
6. You file taxes as a regular employee would.
7. You might be able to get H1 from a day trading firm, a day trading firm is not a market maker. They trade company capital and typically you have to post some risk capital based on which they will provide you leverage and provide you with equipment etc. You don�t get a salary, just a draw.
But let me ask you something; I am not aware of your expertise in the markets so forgive me if I sound patronizing.
1. Do you have a seven figure capital pool? You will need at least 1MM if you want to make a living trading.
2. Are you aware of the equipment and ECN and direct access software needed assuming you are technical trader.
3. Do you have a prime broker who is going to provide you leverage and settlement? If you have not decided consider Interactive Brokers.
4. What kind of risk management software will you be using?
If you are in the NY/Nj area I suggest try day trading at a firm posting risk capital (typically 10K) then decide if you want to do this full time. It will also help sharpen your skills. If you want I can recommend a few. They will not sponsor H1 though, you will have to have some consultant do that for you.
Thanks for that Info, here is my requirement
I am on H1B and plan to have my own company as a trader to trade stocks.
I will be the owner and wish to draw profits, may not have employee in my company for now(please advice, if i need to)
I need inputs to know what type of company should that be (LLC, S Corporation.. e.t.c.)?
Is it advisable to have a GC holder/citizen as partner?
What form of income should i withdraw(salary/profits/dividends/Interest..) How is the income considered when i file my taxes?
I am not aware of anyone who can sponsor my H1 as a trader atleast for now, if i get the right opportunity, i am open for that
Thanks again
1. If you want to trade stocks only, with your own capital ,then set up a LLC or C corp. If you trade other people�s capital then maybe become a RIA.
2. If you form a llc you become a employee of your own company (say managing director, CIO etc) and sponsor your own H1.
3. You can have a fixed salary and a draw, which is what a typical trader gets. Draw is a percentage of the profits you generate by trading.
4. You don�t need a gc/Citizen as a partner.
5. The company/fund makes money by trading securities and the earnings are retained by the company, you draw salary and bonus.
6. You file taxes as a regular employee would.
7. You might be able to get H1 from a day trading firm, a day trading firm is not a market maker. They trade company capital and typically you have to post some risk capital based on which they will provide you leverage and provide you with equipment etc. You don�t get a salary, just a draw.
But let me ask you something; I am not aware of your expertise in the markets so forgive me if I sound patronizing.
1. Do you have a seven figure capital pool? You will need at least 1MM if you want to make a living trading.
2. Are you aware of the equipment and ECN and direct access software needed assuming you are technical trader.
3. Do you have a prime broker who is going to provide you leverage and settlement? If you have not decided consider Interactive Brokers.
4. What kind of risk management software will you be using?
If you are in the NY/Nj area I suggest try day trading at a firm posting risk capital (typically 10K) then decide if you want to do this full time. It will also help sharpen your skills. If you want I can recommend a few. They will not sponsor H1 though, you will have to have some consultant do that for you.
hair quotes for your ex oyfriend
mirage
08-25 04:33 PM
EB-3 India is last in the line so first EB-2 (WW) than EB-2 India/china/mexico, then EB-3 (WW) then EB-3 India/China/Mexico... basically my common sense tells me EB-3 India will get a big 'ZERO'....
There is a spillover of 22000 visas from FB to EB starting Sep 01 2008. Does anybody know how this spillover is divided between EB1/EB2/EB3?
Can we expect 28.6% of this spillover in EB3? Just like we get 28.6% of annual quota?
There is a spillover of 22000 visas from FB to EB starting Sep 01 2008. Does anybody know how this spillover is divided between EB1/EB2/EB3?
Can we expect 28.6% of this spillover in EB3? Just like we get 28.6% of annual quota?
more...
ThinkTwice
07-11 04:59 PM
Below if the news letter from IV , please use this to forward information.
Yes, PDF will be helpful.. I was just searching for some such info.. Thanks nraja
==========================
IMMIGRATION VOICE ACTION ALERT: 7/11/2007.
Dear Members:
Immigration Voice is organizing its first peaceful protest rally in San Jose, CA on July 14th in order to protest the broken system of legal high-skills immigration. This protest march is being organized to oppose the enormous visas backlogs in the employment based immigration system. This protest march is also intended to oppose the recent decision of USCIS to block the adjustment of status petitions in July resulting from an unprecedented out-of-order reversal on the part of DOS and USCIS.
Please join this rally in huge numbers to create more awareness in the Media, Congress and the Administration. We are already getting attention of Congress and the Administration due to recently published articles on the flower campaign in New York Times and Washington Post on July 11th. If you cannot join but if you know someone who lives in San Jose area and who doesn’t know about this effort, please ask him or her to join this rally. More numbers will get us more media coverage and more attention to this issue.
This rally has the potential to bring our issue to the attention of everyone, including the Silicon Valley tech employers who have a stake in the morale and productivity of the hi-tech foreign employees in their companies and their backlogged immigration.
EVENT:
Peaceful protest march by Legal Immigrants in San Jose, CA.
LOCATION:
The New City Hall
200 E Santa Clara St
San Jose, CA 95113
DATE:
Saturday July 14, 2007
TIME:
11:00 am To 2:30 pm
ORIGIN, DESTINATION, ROUTE & PARKING DETAILS:
11:00 AM: Meet at San Jose City Hall at 200 E Santa Clara St.
PARKING: (Free weekend parking in the 4th St. garage on 44 South Fourth St., & San Fernando St. across from the MLK Jr library; For other free parking areas in downtown San Jose see: http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/free_parking.php )
1) 11:30 AM: Go to the square in front of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library (150 E San Fernando St).
2) 12:30 PM: Walk towards 635 N 1st St through S 4th St, E San Carlos St, Market Street and N 1st Street.
3) 1:15 PM: Arrive at 635 N 1st St and stay till 2:00 PM
4) 2:30 PM: back to City Hall
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:
1) Abide by the laws.
2) Stay on sidewalks.
3) Follow traffic rules, show courtesy to other pedestrians.
4) Do not block building entrances.
5) Dress Professionally. No shorts or Bermudas. Wear formal dress clothes, semi-casual or business-casual.
WHAT TO BRING:
Plenty of water, snacks and sun block (if needed).
BANNERS AND SIGNS:
Do not bring your own signs. We will have banners and signs ready for you.
FOR DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO THE NEW CITY HALL IN SAN JOSE, SEE BELOW:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/newCityHall/gettingThere.asp
GOOGLE MAP FOR THE ROUTE OF THE PEACEFUL MARCH (COPY PASTE URL IN BROWSER):
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=200+E+Santa+Clara+St,+San+Jose,+CA&daddr=S+4th+St+%4037.337490,+-121.887320+to%3A150+E+San+Fernando+St,+san+jose,+c a+to%3AS+4th+St+%4037.332980,+-121.883940+to%3AS+Market+St+%4037.331030,+-121.888360+to%3A37.333859,-121.890907+to%3AN+Market+St+%4037.338380,+-121.894240+to%3AW+St+James+St+%4037.339080,+-121.892780+to%3A635+N+1st +St,+San+Jose,+CA+to%3A200+E+Santa+Clara+St+San+Jo se,+CA+95113&mrcr=4,5&mrsp=5&sz=15&mra=dme&sll=37.335736,-121.886315&sspn=0.015764,0.039911&ie=UTF8&z=15&om=1
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Event leaders or organizers take no responsibility and will not be held responsible for any injuries or accidents that may occur during the posted events. It is your responsibility to abide by law. By joining this event, you are taking responsibility for your own safety and well-being.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Immigration Voice Core Team.
Yes, PDF will be helpful.. I was just searching for some such info.. Thanks nraja
==========================
IMMIGRATION VOICE ACTION ALERT: 7/11/2007.
Dear Members:
Immigration Voice is organizing its first peaceful protest rally in San Jose, CA on July 14th in order to protest the broken system of legal high-skills immigration. This protest march is being organized to oppose the enormous visas backlogs in the employment based immigration system. This protest march is also intended to oppose the recent decision of USCIS to block the adjustment of status petitions in July resulting from an unprecedented out-of-order reversal on the part of DOS and USCIS.
Please join this rally in huge numbers to create more awareness in the Media, Congress and the Administration. We are already getting attention of Congress and the Administration due to recently published articles on the flower campaign in New York Times and Washington Post on July 11th. If you cannot join but if you know someone who lives in San Jose area and who doesn’t know about this effort, please ask him or her to join this rally. More numbers will get us more media coverage and more attention to this issue.
This rally has the potential to bring our issue to the attention of everyone, including the Silicon Valley tech employers who have a stake in the morale and productivity of the hi-tech foreign employees in their companies and their backlogged immigration.
EVENT:
Peaceful protest march by Legal Immigrants in San Jose, CA.
LOCATION:
The New City Hall
200 E Santa Clara St
San Jose, CA 95113
DATE:
Saturday July 14, 2007
TIME:
11:00 am To 2:30 pm
ORIGIN, DESTINATION, ROUTE & PARKING DETAILS:
11:00 AM: Meet at San Jose City Hall at 200 E Santa Clara St.
PARKING: (Free weekend parking in the 4th St. garage on 44 South Fourth St., & San Fernando St. across from the MLK Jr library; For other free parking areas in downtown San Jose see: http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/free_parking.php )
1) 11:30 AM: Go to the square in front of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library (150 E San Fernando St).
2) 12:30 PM: Walk towards 635 N 1st St through S 4th St, E San Carlos St, Market Street and N 1st Street.
3) 1:15 PM: Arrive at 635 N 1st St and stay till 2:00 PM
4) 2:30 PM: back to City Hall
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER:
1) Abide by the laws.
2) Stay on sidewalks.
3) Follow traffic rules, show courtesy to other pedestrians.
4) Do not block building entrances.
5) Dress Professionally. No shorts or Bermudas. Wear formal dress clothes, semi-casual or business-casual.
WHAT TO BRING:
Plenty of water, snacks and sun block (if needed).
BANNERS AND SIGNS:
Do not bring your own signs. We will have banners and signs ready for you.
FOR DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO THE NEW CITY HALL IN SAN JOSE, SEE BELOW:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/newCityHall/gettingThere.asp
GOOGLE MAP FOR THE ROUTE OF THE PEACEFUL MARCH (COPY PASTE URL IN BROWSER):
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=200+E+Santa+Clara+St,+San+Jose,+CA&daddr=S+4th+St+%4037.337490,+-121.887320+to%3A150+E+San+Fernando+St,+san+jose,+c a+to%3AS+4th+St+%4037.332980,+-121.883940+to%3AS+Market+St+%4037.331030,+-121.888360+to%3A37.333859,-121.890907+to%3AN+Market+St+%4037.338380,+-121.894240+to%3AW+St+James+St+%4037.339080,+-121.892780+to%3A635+N+1st +St,+San+Jose,+CA+to%3A200+E+Santa+Clara+St+San+Jo se,+CA+95113&mrcr=4,5&mrsp=5&sz=15&mra=dme&sll=37.335736,-121.886315&sspn=0.015764,0.039911&ie=UTF8&z=15&om=1
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Event leaders or organizers take no responsibility and will not be held responsible for any injuries or accidents that may occur during the posted events. It is your responsibility to abide by law. By joining this event, you are taking responsibility for your own safety and well-being.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Immigration Voice Core Team.
hot quotes about your boyfriend.
coopheal
08-13 10:48 AM
Guys,
Now we have poll results. What does these number mean to us? Any action item?
All this poll proves is that new EB3 folks are more vocal. If we really need an action item then start supporting IV with money. Take part in IV action items to call reps.
Face it other option of crying its not fare will not help us.
Now we have poll results. What does these number mean to us? Any action item?
All this poll proves is that new EB3 folks are more vocal. If we really need an action item then start supporting IV with money. Take part in IV action items to call reps.
Face it other option of crying its not fare will not help us.
more...
house love sterling Love
go_guy123
06-13 01:22 AM
IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THIS ----
IV has to convince the government that this mess was created because close to 100000 visas were WASTED/UnUsed while BEC was busy(or not busy) sorting through the cases. If it is the mistake of a govt department, then the govt should fix it by recapturing these visas. They will act only when you make them look bad or file a suit against them. Why hasn't IV been able to push a simple argument like this????
If only it was that simple. There is too much of corporate vested interest
to allow the H1B servitude to go on. So much vested interests in the
Hispanic caucus not to allow "only" EB reform to pass without CIR.
IV has to convince the government that this mess was created because close to 100000 visas were WASTED/UnUsed while BEC was busy(or not busy) sorting through the cases. If it is the mistake of a govt department, then the govt should fix it by recapturing these visas. They will act only when you make them look bad or file a suit against them. Why hasn't IV been able to push a simple argument like this????
If only it was that simple. There is too much of corporate vested interest
to allow the H1B servitude to go on. So much vested interests in the
Hispanic caucus not to allow "only" EB reform to pass without CIR.
tattoo quotes about your boyfriend.
nc14
05-20 03:09 PM
FinalGC,
You have summed it up correctly. Comprehensive insurance from a reputed US company/broker like AIG (not TATA-AIG) is the way to go. I had the same for my parents. Luckily, there was no need for us to use it but I know friends who have used it and were not left in soup (it worked as well as it was supposed to work).
Recently, one of my friend's dad came to Texas and got sick and the bill came to $60K. Unfortunatley, he did not buy travelers insurance and is fighting an uphill battle with the hospital.
My parents are coming next month, so I did a detailed research on all the insurance firms, both in India and in USA and I found that most of the ICICI or Tata-AIG plans have limited coverage, which limits the number of days in an ICU or visits by doctors etc.. Even if the plan has a $100K max, the plan may only cover upto $1000 per day for 30 days or so and then there is limitation for ICU and other surgeries. However, if you take a comprehensive coverage, then whatever the expenses, or wherever the charges are incurred, it does not matter. The total amount upto $100K will be covered and it does not limit ICU charges or room charges or doctor visits etc.
The only reason we need an insurance for parents is to cover emergencies, rather than regular doctor visits. Generally, any emergency run 60-70K, so I would recommend a minimum of $100K and do a comprehensive coverage. I have worked with IMG or check this guy at http://www.visitorshealthinsurance.com/
I even called IMG to ensure that this guy is an authorized re-seller/broker for the insurance.
Additionally, I did not find any insurance that covers pre-existing conditions. So just pray that they are healthy during their stay in US.
Yes, it is little expensive, but better peace of mind with comprehensive. If you do a local US insurance, then it is easy to get the insurance paper work done, when needed, rather than doing an Indian based insurance, which may need additional paper work and money transfer may get delayed.
You have summed it up correctly. Comprehensive insurance from a reputed US company/broker like AIG (not TATA-AIG) is the way to go. I had the same for my parents. Luckily, there was no need for us to use it but I know friends who have used it and were not left in soup (it worked as well as it was supposed to work).
Recently, one of my friend's dad came to Texas and got sick and the bill came to $60K. Unfortunatley, he did not buy travelers insurance and is fighting an uphill battle with the hospital.
My parents are coming next month, so I did a detailed research on all the insurance firms, both in India and in USA and I found that most of the ICICI or Tata-AIG plans have limited coverage, which limits the number of days in an ICU or visits by doctors etc.. Even if the plan has a $100K max, the plan may only cover upto $1000 per day for 30 days or so and then there is limitation for ICU and other surgeries. However, if you take a comprehensive coverage, then whatever the expenses, or wherever the charges are incurred, it does not matter. The total amount upto $100K will be covered and it does not limit ICU charges or room charges or doctor visits etc.
The only reason we need an insurance for parents is to cover emergencies, rather than regular doctor visits. Generally, any emergency run 60-70K, so I would recommend a minimum of $100K and do a comprehensive coverage. I have worked with IMG or check this guy at http://www.visitorshealthinsurance.com/
I even called IMG to ensure that this guy is an authorized re-seller/broker for the insurance.
Additionally, I did not find any insurance that covers pre-existing conditions. So just pray that they are healthy during their stay in US.
Yes, it is little expensive, but better peace of mind with comprehensive. If you do a local US insurance, then it is easy to get the insurance paper work done, when needed, rather than doing an Indian based insurance, which may need additional paper work and money transfer may get delayed.
more...
pictures i love you quotes for your
extra_mint
04-18 08:13 PM
Congrats man...and thanks for sharing the details.
This helps a lot of ppl.
This helps a lot of ppl.
dresses romantic love quotes for your
starscream
09-17 12:37 PM
does anyone kknow who is the chairman(woman) of the judiciary commitee ???
more...
makeup love poems and quotes for your
rkgc
12-29 05:44 PM
done, thanks for the link
girlfriend 2010 cute quotes about your
Aloha1
11-21 08:24 PM
My case I-485 (marriage based) was received in Oct 2005, NC initiated Nov 2005, interviewed Feb 2006, pending name check since.
hairstyles romantic love quotes for your
guchi472000
04-06 07:10 PM
:confused:No LUD but got RFE on I-485(Employment Verification from employer)
GCapplicant
07-18 10:01 AM
DateDelivered:Jul 2nd
TimeDelivered:8.26AM
Center:NSC
Status:None
TimeDelivered:8.26AM
Center:NSC
Status:None
srikondoji
05-24 01:06 PM
This will not pass.
However, if programmers guild is proposing such laws from H1-B aspirants, then why not propose similar proposal for each and every tech worker?
Let us see how many even will vote 'yes'.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199701809
However, if programmers guild is proposing such laws from H1-B aspirants, then why not propose similar proposal for each and every tech worker?
Let us see how many even will vote 'yes'.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199701809
