kondur_007
03-29 09:12 PM
Thanks you very much for the reply.I appreciate.
Yes, Thats perfectly right.
Extension with Employer A is pending, reason is Security CheckThats what i was told and can't be done any thing untill they get back).
Yeah I am planning to go to India and try to get stamped there. But am just wondering that as the Extension with Employer A is in security check so does this cause any issues/delay in giving Visa in india.
I personally think (I am not a lawyer), the delay with your current employer's (employer A) petition for extension is very likely to be "employer" (who is probably under review) rather than "you". (the reason I believe that is the fact that they approved your H1b with another employer; so if it is security check on "you", that would not have happened.).
So if my assumption is correct, you should not have any trouble in getting visa stamped for "employer B" (new employer, with new H1b approval that you have - the one that came without I94),
Good Luck. (If at all possible, do one consultation with a competent attorney who can review all the facts, trust me, your money will be worth)
Yes, Thats perfectly right.
Extension with Employer A is pending, reason is Security CheckThats what i was told and can't be done any thing untill they get back).
Yeah I am planning to go to India and try to get stamped there. But am just wondering that as the Extension with Employer A is in security check so does this cause any issues/delay in giving Visa in india.
I personally think (I am not a lawyer), the delay with your current employer's (employer A) petition for extension is very likely to be "employer" (who is probably under review) rather than "you". (the reason I believe that is the fact that they approved your H1b with another employer; so if it is security check on "you", that would not have happened.).
So if my assumption is correct, you should not have any trouble in getting visa stamped for "employer B" (new employer, with new H1b approval that you have - the one that came without I94),
Good Luck. (If at all possible, do one consultation with a competent attorney who can review all the facts, trust me, your money will be worth)
wallpaper tattoo Cheat Point Blank
nath.exists
04-09 11:01 AM
short clip Telecasting in desi channels will be a good idea. as i know lot of indians watch desi channels.I still know many in my relatives who are suffering from green card retrogression but are ignorant of immigrationvoice.org and core team.all of them have desi channels through dish. we can telecast a short 10 second add in these channels and also telecast in u.s. channels to get widespread desi support and also all other green card retrogression victims support.by telecasting in these channels many ppl back in india will also know about the problems we indians are facing in u.s.a due to gc retro.we have to use popular media like t.v and internet as much as possible to get fellow victims and would-be victims know about us.yesterday i have posted in various communities like 'indians in america','hyderbadi's abroad' in orkut.com about immigrationvoice.org.similarly we can target many social networking sites,rediff.com,yahoo.com and other websites.chain mails like forwarding the plight of gc victims to all other friends and so on...and sending offline messsages through yahoo messenger etc .what say ???
snathan
02-23 08:13 PM
Hi,
Im from India and joined the company 4 years back as Programmer/Analyst. I have an Bachelors in Computer Science (3 Yrs) + MCA (3 Yrs) and experience of 4 years & 8 months before joining the company. The company field for GC under EB3, priority date: November 2008 and I-140 approved date: November 2009.
With nearing 9 years of experience company promoted me to Sr. Programmer/Analyst consultant and is ready to file the case in EB2.
My question:
1. My priority date from EB3 is November 6, 2008. So after approval of fresh labor for EB2, can the new I-140 for EB2 be filed with the old priority date of EB3 ?
2. Can the same company hold two I-140 for the same employee? That is keep the EB3 I-140 active and apply for EB2 I-140 till the EB2 clears/approves ?
3. The designation & job duties can be the same as that of EB3 or need to be changed.
Thanks in advance!
1. You cannot use the experience gained from the current employer...
2. You need to have MS+2 or Bachlor+5 years progressive experience before joining your current employer. You are short of 4 months for 5 years progressive experience and definitely USCIS will not appcept.
3. Also you will have tough time, if you PERM requires bachlor and you do not have four years single source degree. So its importent what the requirement on the PERM is.
So I am seeing you are going to have tough time to get EB2. But you will get the PERM approved and will face issues during I-140.
Im from India and joined the company 4 years back as Programmer/Analyst. I have an Bachelors in Computer Science (3 Yrs) + MCA (3 Yrs) and experience of 4 years & 8 months before joining the company. The company field for GC under EB3, priority date: November 2008 and I-140 approved date: November 2009.
With nearing 9 years of experience company promoted me to Sr. Programmer/Analyst consultant and is ready to file the case in EB2.
My question:
1. My priority date from EB3 is November 6, 2008. So after approval of fresh labor for EB2, can the new I-140 for EB2 be filed with the old priority date of EB3 ?
2. Can the same company hold two I-140 for the same employee? That is keep the EB3 I-140 active and apply for EB2 I-140 till the EB2 clears/approves ?
3. The designation & job duties can be the same as that of EB3 or need to be changed.
Thanks in advance!
1. You cannot use the experience gained from the current employer...
2. You need to have MS+2 or Bachlor+5 years progressive experience before joining your current employer. You are short of 4 months for 5 years progressive experience and definitely USCIS will not appcept.
3. Also you will have tough time, if you PERM requires bachlor and you do not have four years single source degree. So its importent what the requirement on the PERM is.
So I am seeing you are going to have tough time to get EB2. But you will get the PERM approved and will face issues during I-140.
2011 may 2011 point blank exp hack
panks
04-02 12:07 PM
Thank you gc28262. It's just that my attorney havent seen this issue with Pre PERM cases. May be it is because PERM had more specific questions to answer so that there is little flexibility. Form 750 which was used before PERM did not have that many specific questions regarding labor conditions. So there was room for interpretation.
Thanks for murthy's link. Yes, It makes sense Gald I extended my H1 after returning on AP. So I am better positioned there.
Yes, actually the USCIS has argued the same in their revocation response which is that my labor requirements on Form 9089 aren't flexible enough to transfer me to EB3.
----
Regarding your H1B status, please read the following newsletter from murthy.com
Effect of Travel While in H1B / L-1 Status and Pending I-485 (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_efftrv.html)
Traveling on AP doesn't necessarily switch you out of H1B. If you are working for the same employer after entering on AP, you can still extend your H1 and continue to be on H1 status.
Based on my limited understanding, your lawyer is wrong when he says "3 year degree issue is mostly with PERM applications and not with others". 3 year degree issue comes up during I-140 stage. Nowadays USCIS has a strict requirement that the degree should be a "single source" 4 year degree for EB2 applications.
As for the successful outcome of trying to downgrade your application to EB3, your labor certification should be flexible enough to allow your application to be downgraded to EB3.
IMO it is better to get a second opinion/consultation with a reputed lawyer. If I were you I wouldn't trust your current lawyer.
Thanks for murthy's link. Yes, It makes sense Gald I extended my H1 after returning on AP. So I am better positioned there.
Yes, actually the USCIS has argued the same in their revocation response which is that my labor requirements on Form 9089 aren't flexible enough to transfer me to EB3.
----
Regarding your H1B status, please read the following newsletter from murthy.com
Effect of Travel While in H1B / L-1 Status and Pending I-485 (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_efftrv.html)
Traveling on AP doesn't necessarily switch you out of H1B. If you are working for the same employer after entering on AP, you can still extend your H1 and continue to be on H1 status.
Based on my limited understanding, your lawyer is wrong when he says "3 year degree issue is mostly with PERM applications and not with others". 3 year degree issue comes up during I-140 stage. Nowadays USCIS has a strict requirement that the degree should be a "single source" 4 year degree for EB2 applications.
As for the successful outcome of trying to downgrade your application to EB3, your labor certification should be flexible enough to allow your application to be downgraded to EB3.
IMO it is better to get a second opinion/consultation with a reputed lawyer. If I were you I wouldn't trust your current lawyer.
more...
ayazali17
12-18 01:56 PM
Thanks for answering all my questions.
immi2006
05-24 10:17 AM
Does not matter how many points, can u be one of the 6300 ?
The points are not defined well, so do not speculate, it is not abt getting into Wharton / or yale, it takes years to implement a working system, look at Perm, they started in 2001, it took 4 years to implement.
The points are not defined well, so do not speculate, it is not abt getting into Wharton / or yale, it takes years to implement a working system, look at Perm, they started in 2001, it took 4 years to implement.
more...
vts31
10-20 02:53 AM
about painter.
1. version 5 sux.
2. ive never used 7. but i think its pretty good.
i use 6.
1. version 5 sux.
2. ive never used 7. but i think its pretty good.
i use 6.
2010 cheat hack cash point blank
harrydr
08-03 09:36 AM
Hello IV friends,
My PD is May 2008 and currently i have an approved i-140. I have been wanting to change my job but always been scared of the impact on my GC processing as i heard if i change my job prior to filing for I-485 (which i cannot as the PD is not current), i would have start the process all over again. What are my options here? Thanks in advance.
My PD is May 2008 and currently i have an approved i-140. I have been wanting to change my job but always been scared of the impact on my GC processing as i heard if i change my job prior to filing for I-485 (which i cannot as the PD is not current), i would have start the process all over again. What are my options here? Thanks in advance.
more...
mambarg
07-27 02:01 PM
Thanks.
I wish I should I have acted against the USCIS notice on july 2nd saying they will reject. I should have listened to Rajiv khanna website who was saying that the app should be filed even if it was sent back.
But my attorney said its no use to beat the system and I should wait till october.
I listened and kept quite for few days and later decided on July 16th that What the heck !!!. Let us submit even if it is returned and went ahead.
Every day matters as the counter is 180 days. It is like a time bomb clock.
I think now we can just mark on our calendars the 180 days which includes some months of 31 days and mark exactly the date and time and plan to celeberate it to fulliest.
I wish I should I have acted against the USCIS notice on july 2nd saying they will reject. I should have listened to Rajiv khanna website who was saying that the app should be filed even if it was sent back.
But my attorney said its no use to beat the system and I should wait till october.
I listened and kept quite for few days and later decided on July 16th that What the heck !!!. Let us submit even if it is returned and went ahead.
Every day matters as the counter is 180 days. It is like a time bomb clock.
I think now we can just mark on our calendars the 180 days which includes some months of 31 days and mark exactly the date and time and plan to celeberate it to fulliest.
hair cheat point blank bintang 5. cheat point blank terbaru 2011.
Munna Bhai
12-14 03:49 PM
I got I-140 RFE (EB2) for education as mentioned above I have 3 yrs education and 60+ months of experience and labour says BS or Equivalent Foreign degree with 60 months of experience.
However, the RFE says submit the evidence that it is equvalent to US 4 years degree 3 year Bachelor degree + if any other degrees. They also mentioned we do not want a simple evalutaion that has been done by private evaluators says it is equvalent to BS 4 years degrees. They want detailed explanation each degree and other diploma that is equivalent to US 10th grade, 4 years Degree by acceptable evaluator also include evalutor details.
I am in 6th year of H1B, donno what will happen. My company said it is simple RFE. Looking for other alternatives.......
get your own evaluation from http://www.wes.org/ or any other source, don't depend on company/attorney etc.
However, the RFE says submit the evidence that it is equvalent to US 4 years degree 3 year Bachelor degree + if any other degrees. They also mentioned we do not want a simple evalutaion that has been done by private evaluators says it is equvalent to BS 4 years degrees. They want detailed explanation each degree and other diploma that is equivalent to US 10th grade, 4 years Degree by acceptable evaluator also include evalutor details.
I am in 6th year of H1B, donno what will happen. My company said it is simple RFE. Looking for other alternatives.......
get your own evaluation from http://www.wes.org/ or any other source, don't depend on company/attorney etc.
more...
Pria
01-06 04:25 PM
Thanks so much for taking time to respond. I have e-filed my application and am sending all supporting documents today. It appears that the processing time is about 90 days, so I might not be able to leave in Feb afterall. But at least I will have my Travel document ready for any future travel plans.
Best,
Pria
Best,
Pria
hot point blank cash wallpaper
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
more...
house cheat point blank bintang 5. cheat point blank terbaru 2011 cheat point
Dipika
11-25 02:05 PM
Thanks for correcting me. i am sorry for wrong info. i'm not able to open all links in office, as firewall block forum links, so missed to read the rule.
Here is the OFFICIAL link from US Consulate at Tijuana
Visa Services (http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/niv.html)
Who Can Apply in Mexico
TCN Applicants residing in the United States, seeking to renew their visa in any category except B1/2 (tourist/business), if the current visa was issued in the applicant's country of nationality, former residence, or in Mexico. A spouse or dependent children may apply with the principal visa holder if the principal meets the criteria above. A renewal is a case where an applicant for the same type of visa is made and does not include persons who seek to change from one visa category to another or who are seeking any other type of “change of status” even if that change has been authorized by the Department of Homeland Security.
Here is the OFFICIAL link from US Consulate at Tijuana
Visa Services (http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/niv.html)
Who Can Apply in Mexico
TCN Applicants residing in the United States, seeking to renew their visa in any category except B1/2 (tourist/business), if the current visa was issued in the applicant's country of nationality, former residence, or in Mexico. A spouse or dependent children may apply with the principal visa holder if the principal meets the criteria above. A renewal is a case where an applicant for the same type of visa is made and does not include persons who seek to change from one visa category to another or who are seeking any other type of “change of status” even if that change has been authorized by the Department of Homeland Security.
tattoo cheat point blank pb 3
tabletpc
11-29 02:43 PM
senorita..raj here...
here comes the answers for your responses...
1) Since I wont be coming back to US as of now, what if I do not get my H1 visa stamped. Can I use my approval(I-797)in the present consulting firm's name, for getting H1b stamped through any other company in future.
You need pay stubs of working firm to get the stamping. If you are working presently ..u will ahve some pay stubs and you can use it and get stamped.
2) I understand that stamping is needed only for reentering US. What if i just get the stamping done and still do not come back. In that case, can I still transfer my stamped H1B to any other company without working at all for the consulting firm whose stamp I have on my passport.
If you live out side US for more than 360 days , then u r H1b is invalid. In order to return again you should apply under the H1b cap.
Hope this helps....
here comes the answers for your responses...
1) Since I wont be coming back to US as of now, what if I do not get my H1 visa stamped. Can I use my approval(I-797)in the present consulting firm's name, for getting H1b stamped through any other company in future.
You need pay stubs of working firm to get the stamping. If you are working presently ..u will ahve some pay stubs and you can use it and get stamped.
2) I understand that stamping is needed only for reentering US. What if i just get the stamping done and still do not come back. In that case, can I still transfer my stamped H1B to any other company without working at all for the consulting firm whose stamp I have on my passport.
If you live out side US for more than 360 days , then u r H1b is invalid. In order to return again you should apply under the H1b cap.
Hope this helps....
more...
pictures cash hack download free
aadimanav
12-28 02:06 PM
NSC Dec 2007 Processing Times says:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
"..The processing times shown below are for applications that have just been completed..."
In the table it mentions "April 24, 2007" as the date for EB based 485 adjustment applications.
Just for one sec assume that above date is right. What does "processing completion" of your 485 means? Does that mean your case is pre-adjudicated and waiting for the visa number and you won't get any RFE?
Also, when they are mentioning "April 24, 2007" date , are they ignoring the applicants who are stuck in namecheck process for years? If a person has filed 485 in 2005 or 2006 but stuck in namecheck, how come 485 is completed?
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
"..The processing times shown below are for applications that have just been completed..."
In the table it mentions "April 24, 2007" as the date for EB based 485 adjustment applications.
Just for one sec assume that above date is right. What does "processing completion" of your 485 means? Does that mean your case is pre-adjudicated and waiting for the visa number and you won't get any RFE?
Also, when they are mentioning "April 24, 2007" date , are they ignoring the applicants who are stuck in namecheck process for years? If a person has filed 485 in 2005 or 2006 but stuck in namecheck, how come 485 is completed?
dresses cheat point blank terbaru
texanguy
05-15 06:17 PM
I would like Representative "Representative Name" to co sponsor bills HR 5882 and HR 5921, sponsored by Zoe Lofgren.
I am confused, are we asking them to "co-sponsor" or to "support"?
Please advice.
I am confused, are we asking them to "co-sponsor" or to "support"?
Please advice.
more...
makeup wolfteam gold cash hack 2011
gcnoteasy
11-23 11:34 PM
You should write the job duties, salary , 40hrs.week and get it approved by the lawyer and then email to lawyer. Once lawyer approves you should send it to your friend in Canada and he should print I believe he can notarize in Canada and send it back to you or may be he can print in his company letter head. Thank you.
girlfriend hot wallpaper point blank.
satishku_2000
07-28 06:30 PM
My prediction for this year..
EB1 = Current
EB2 = Jan 2003 (Because of BEC cases coming out, chance for them to file I-485 in October)
EB3 = U
EB3 India may show Jan 23 500 B.C , but cant be U because the quota starts fresh in October. They goto 'U' only when respective category numbers for the country are exhausted for the year. Usually numbers will become unavailable only in last quarter of the year.
EB1 = Current
EB2 = Jan 2003 (Because of BEC cases coming out, chance for them to file I-485 in October)
EB3 = U
EB3 India may show Jan 23 500 B.C , but cant be U because the quota starts fresh in October. They goto 'U' only when respective category numbers for the country are exhausted for the year. Usually numbers will become unavailable only in last quarter of the year.
hairstyles wolfteam softnyx cash hack
Homemaker
08-11 06:42 PM
I assume that this new immigration will definitely work if all the members vote for it and am sure it will surely have impact on our lives once it passes.Hope for the best always.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
lostinbeta
09-05 10:13 PM
Nice new footer too dan. I likes.....
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий