gman
07-08 08:08 PM
Where's this information posted?
hebron
08-10 10:15 AM
Suggestions....anybody? ^^^^
Gravitation
11-19 10:30 AM
For July 2nd filers, the freedom is attained on Dec 29th (180 days after filing).
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...
desi3933
05-21 06:50 AM
I understand two I-140s, one existing (EB-3) and second new I-140 (EB2), but you have also mentioned more. Why need more than two, in what circumstances?
Example -
PD Jan 2002 EB-3 I-140 (Job Title: Senior Programmer)
Filed new I-140 on March 2004 for EB-2 I-140 (Job Title: Project Manager) and claimed earlier PD of Jan 2002
Filed new I-140 on Feb 2009 for EB-1 I-140 (Job Title: Director Software Division) and claimed earlier PD of Jan 2002
Beneficiary can claim PD of Jan 2002 with his EB-1 I-140.
Please note that I-140s can belong to any employer, but they all must belong to same beneficiary.
_________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
Example -
PD Jan 2002 EB-3 I-140 (Job Title: Senior Programmer)
Filed new I-140 on March 2004 for EB-2 I-140 (Job Title: Project Manager) and claimed earlier PD of Jan 2002
Filed new I-140 on Feb 2009 for EB-1 I-140 (Job Title: Director Software Division) and claimed earlier PD of Jan 2002
Beneficiary can claim PD of Jan 2002 with his EB-1 I-140.
Please note that I-140s can belong to any employer, but they all must belong to same beneficiary.
_________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
IN2US
07-26 05:23 PM
You can get EAD even if your I-140 is pending.Correct me if I am wrong.
That is correct.
That is correct.
more...
gparr
June 4th, 2004, 02:58 PM
I hope you don't mind but with about 20 minutes in photoshop...
:D
I needed that laugh after the day I've had. Thanks.
Gary
:D
I needed that laugh after the day I've had. Thanks.
Gary
copsmart
06-15 02:52 PM
Given below are my case details.
Paper Based – Sent to Phoenix Lockbox, rerouted to CSC
Mailed Date : May 18th
Delivered Date : May 19th
Received Date : May 20th
Notice Date : June 1st
1st SLUD : June 2nd
2nd SLUD : June 9th
3rd SLUD : June 10th
4th SLUD : June 11th
No activity since last SLUD… My EAD expires in August. Has anyone noticed similar SLUD pattern on their case lately?
I would really appreciate if CSC/WAC applicants post their case status updates.
Thanks!!!
Paper Based – Sent to Phoenix Lockbox, rerouted to CSC
Mailed Date : May 18th
Delivered Date : May 19th
Received Date : May 20th
Notice Date : June 1st
1st SLUD : June 2nd
2nd SLUD : June 9th
3rd SLUD : June 10th
4th SLUD : June 11th
No activity since last SLUD… My EAD expires in August. Has anyone noticed similar SLUD pattern on their case lately?
I would really appreciate if CSC/WAC applicants post their case status updates.
Thanks!!!
more...
shreekhand
08-03 12:39 AM
Well...most of the applications who applied for I-485 before retrogression hit in 2005 are already approved. So actually we are not seeing an effect of those applications.
What we are witnessing is the effect of all those who could not apply for I-485 from early 2001 till now because of the combined effect of retrogression and BEC! And as if that was not enough all those with PD's up until July 31, 2007 are applying (good for them) but making matters even difficult!!!
We are now seeing the effects of all those applications. Does this make any sense. It's some interesting pattern but I am not completely able to analyze the situation. Any inputs??
What we are witnessing is the effect of all those who could not apply for I-485 from early 2001 till now because of the combined effect of retrogression and BEC! And as if that was not enough all those with PD's up until July 31, 2007 are applying (good for them) but making matters even difficult!!!
We are now seeing the effects of all those applications. Does this make any sense. It's some interesting pattern but I am not completely able to analyze the situation. Any inputs??
simple1
06-18 06:40 PM
Guys,
you all re jumping to conclusions based on opinions, have you forgoteen what OBAMA had been saying about immigration?
1. Address legal immigration first
2. Illegals will have to stand behind the ones who came in this country legally.
Do you really think, that they will totoaly ignore legal immigrants and work on illegal. Obama has been talking about this process since his days of presidentail campaign,
We all need to have faith and work towards making IV and its goal attainable.
I hope the same.
I agree. It is in best interest of all EB immigrants to stick together. That's all I wanted to say.
Thanks.
you all re jumping to conclusions based on opinions, have you forgoteen what OBAMA had been saying about immigration?
1. Address legal immigration first
2. Illegals will have to stand behind the ones who came in this country legally.
Do you really think, that they will totoaly ignore legal immigrants and work on illegal. Obama has been talking about this process since his days of presidentail campaign,
We all need to have faith and work towards making IV and its goal attainable.
I hope the same.
I agree. It is in best interest of all EB immigrants to stick together. That's all I wanted to say.
Thanks.
more...
qplearn
12-20 08:45 PM
Undocumented amount 33% taken out from monthly compensation then pay roll tax withhold amount went to federal, state tax, social tax and Medicare.
My point is how can employer deduct tax with is not shown on pay slip.
What would be take home for 100k base? He should deposit $8333/pm not $5835/pm then pay roll processing department will deduct appropriate amount not he deducts 33% then sends to pay roll.
I am sorry to hear this, and I hope your friend is able to get out of the mess. I have heard of something similar, although the logistics were slightly different in that case, from a friend. Unfortunately, such things happen.
My point is how can employer deduct tax with is not shown on pay slip.
What would be take home for 100k base? He should deposit $8333/pm not $5835/pm then pay roll processing department will deduct appropriate amount not he deducts 33% then sends to pay roll.
I am sorry to hear this, and I hope your friend is able to get out of the mess. I have heard of something similar, although the logistics were slightly different in that case, from a friend. Unfortunately, such things happen.
Humpakistani
03-26 02:13 AM
its processing time is not more then a week
more...
Motivated
10-27 09:22 AM
to Motivated...
Seriously, .... Are you really thinking about getting this guy :p
Good Job!
at least there is some action involved, you should join too....especially if you are from WI
just saying meragcdedobhai - won't get it.
Seriously, .... Are you really thinking about getting this guy :p
Good Job!
at least there is some action involved, you should join too....especially if you are from WI
just saying meragcdedobhai - won't get it.
kumar07
09-12 12:05 PM
Hi Friends,
Here is my Situation;
me and my wife,both residents of singapore, have h1b approved this year through the same consultancy firm and the company has already received the approval notice. We are planning to appear for visa interview sometime end of this month with Singapore Embassy and the company is going to send all the documents by next week.
Since we both are going for visa interview, I have few concerns regarding our cases:
1 We both are planning to go for visa interview on the same day. So, who should go first so that it would not interfere others interview? Or does it really make any difference?
2 Will visa officer ask any of us that since you are married why you haven't bring your spouse together? Can we say that the other also has h1b interview on the same day?
3 I am not sure whether my wife would face any questions regarding that she is married and does she have any spouse issues or what if mine H1b is not going to approved? would she still be interested to pursue her h1b or like that?
4 My h1b was denied last year because of company project document issue with same singapore embassy. So I am not sure does it going to make any impact this time or not? Any help appreciated.
I would appreciate if anyone could help me to find any of the answers.
Thanks.
Here is my Situation;
me and my wife,both residents of singapore, have h1b approved this year through the same consultancy firm and the company has already received the approval notice. We are planning to appear for visa interview sometime end of this month with Singapore Embassy and the company is going to send all the documents by next week.
Since we both are going for visa interview, I have few concerns regarding our cases:
1 We both are planning to go for visa interview on the same day. So, who should go first so that it would not interfere others interview? Or does it really make any difference?
2 Will visa officer ask any of us that since you are married why you haven't bring your spouse together? Can we say that the other also has h1b interview on the same day?
3 I am not sure whether my wife would face any questions regarding that she is married and does she have any spouse issues or what if mine H1b is not going to approved? would she still be interested to pursue her h1b or like that?
4 My h1b was denied last year because of company project document issue with same singapore embassy. So I am not sure does it going to make any impact this time or not? Any help appreciated.
I would appreciate if anyone could help me to find any of the answers.
Thanks.
more...
md2003
04-05 08:36 AM
I talked to my company (i.e company A) about my decision to join company B. He provided the following explaination :
1. EB2 to EB2 porting is not possible: According to him EB3 to EB2 porting seems possible but he wasnt sure about EB2 to EB2. He needs to look into the matter. Can you please provide some more information on this...
Ans: you can port your priority date from A to B as long as i140 is not cancelled because of fraud. No problem whether it is EB2 to EB2 or Eb3 to EB2
2. Query on Ability to Pay: He said that when company files 140 for current employee who are on company payroll right now, he might get REF regarding ability to pay. At that time he has to cancel my 140 as well as number of approved 140 that are unaccounted for (i.e employee left or he didnt cancel), to prove company's ability to pay for current employees. So his argument was that it will be difficult for him to retain my 140 for next 1 year. But i believe GC is for future employment and he has to pay me the salary as per the LC. The company seems to be making good amount of profit. So i feel he is trying to hold me back by providing excuses. Or is this a valid reason ?
Ans: company 'A' may be correct. He need to cancel your i140 as soon as leave the company.It depends on employer. Some companies does some companies not.
But, i am not sure whether you can port your priority date or not if 'A' cancel your i140.
Few Attornies saying yes few saying no.
1. EB2 to EB2 porting is not possible: According to him EB3 to EB2 porting seems possible but he wasnt sure about EB2 to EB2. He needs to look into the matter. Can you please provide some more information on this...
Ans: you can port your priority date from A to B as long as i140 is not cancelled because of fraud. No problem whether it is EB2 to EB2 or Eb3 to EB2
2. Query on Ability to Pay: He said that when company files 140 for current employee who are on company payroll right now, he might get REF regarding ability to pay. At that time he has to cancel my 140 as well as number of approved 140 that are unaccounted for (i.e employee left or he didnt cancel), to prove company's ability to pay for current employees. So his argument was that it will be difficult for him to retain my 140 for next 1 year. But i believe GC is for future employment and he has to pay me the salary as per the LC. The company seems to be making good amount of profit. So i feel he is trying to hold me back by providing excuses. Or is this a valid reason ?
Ans: company 'A' may be correct. He need to cancel your i140 as soon as leave the company.It depends on employer. Some companies does some companies not.
But, i am not sure whether you can port your priority date or not if 'A' cancel your i140.
Few Attornies saying yes few saying no.
zigglar001
11-10 12:35 PM
Hi ,
My 180 days have passed and I have an approved 140. My job was filed in 2002 in EB2 as s/w engg. In this job i moved to project manager in IT. Now I am getting a job offer for an awesome company, nice pay and as a program manager. the role is still in IT but it will be more managing.
Would this be a safe bet to take by choosing AC-21?
Please reply. i need to respond to them in a couple of days....
My 180 days have passed and I have an approved 140. My job was filed in 2002 in EB2 as s/w engg. In this job i moved to project manager in IT. Now I am getting a job offer for an awesome company, nice pay and as a program manager. the role is still in IT but it will be more managing.
Would this be a safe bet to take by choosing AC-21?
Please reply. i need to respond to them in a couple of days....
more...
ArkBird
12-12 04:22 PM
Yes. If the company financials are problem, you may have the same problem with EB3. I suggest, get paid consultation from some reputed lawyers.
Refile as what lawyer says, get new H1. That will give you some breathing room. If you see that current financial problem may jeopardize the new GC process as well, then you should switch over.
I assume this lawyer is hired by the company. So he will never advise you to make a move. It is you who have to look at all the options and see if it makes sense.
Refile as what lawyer says, get new H1. That will give you some breathing room. If you see that current financial problem may jeopardize the new GC process as well, then you should switch over.
I assume this lawyer is hired by the company. So he will never advise you to make a move. It is you who have to look at all the options and see if it makes sense.
ganguteli
05-06 03:47 PM
Doing something is always better than doing nothing. If IV members would go for the meeting there are chances that they would meet some people and talk to them. In the next meeting these people would go to the stage and talk about IV. If one does not do anything there is a high chance that one would do anything in future.
Please motivate IV members to do something. It does not matter whether it would bear results or not. After few errors they would be doing better and right things. Lets walk the talk and not talk talk talk.
If people really want to do something, then how about we organize a rally in DC and show up in thousands?
Then everyone will know you and you do not need to go to meetings just to show your faces and expect that someone will have mercy on us and think about us next time.
Please motivate IV members to do something. It does not matter whether it would bear results or not. After few errors they would be doing better and right things. Lets walk the talk and not talk talk talk.
If people really want to do something, then how about we organize a rally in DC and show up in thousands?
Then everyone will know you and you do not need to go to meetings just to show your faces and expect that someone will have mercy on us and think about us next time.
godbless
06-29 11:28 AM
Is there any quota on filing the I 140s? My friend requested his employer for upgrading his 140 and he says that the attorney mentioned that the quota for I 140 is already full. I don't think it is right. Any inromation please.
rockstart
01-08 12:28 PM
Posting IV Wiki page link on Birth Certificates
US I-485 RFE Birth Certificate - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/US_I-485_RFE_Birth_Certificate#External_Reference_Links )
US I-485 RFE Birth Certificate - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/US_I-485_RFE_Birth_Certificate#External_Reference_Links )
njdude26
08-27 11:33 AM
you are not getting my point. im trying to see if this MBA will help with STEM/SKIL and get me a GC. that is all im interested in.
will it help me or not is the Q ..
will it help me or not is the Q ..
0 comments:
Post a Comment