g_singh
06-22 04:33 PM
Please let us know what happened? We (H1Bs) are in the same boat. Did you become a member of brokerage firm (LLC).
Thanks
Thanks
bsbawa10
04-11 06:09 AM
I always did paper filing. I have done it third time this time. Incidently, the first two times the EAD approval came in about 17 days but this time, it has already been 15 days and I have not received the receipt even. The check was withdrawn on the 13th day.
STAmisha
06-19 04:30 PM
please post your comments
travellertvr
03-22 02:57 PM
hpandey,
Thank you for your reply. Yes, new H-1B comes with new I-94.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, new H-1B comes with new I-94.
more...
pkv
04-13 05:35 PM
For a medical REF how many days do we have to reply?
Thanks,
RabiS
Doesn't your RFE letter says it clearly? They mention a "reply by date" also on the letter.
Thanks,
RabiS
Doesn't your RFE letter says it clearly? They mention a "reply by date" also on the letter.
javadeveloper
07-18 10:08 PM
found this one too
http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14653
http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14653
more...
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
p7810456
01-10 03:53 PM
I applied mine on 11th of May, 2007.. EB3 India..
Got RFE on 4th of December, replied the same week, they got it on 27th of December. Online status says "Processing has resumed..!!!"
In RFE.. they asked for last year's W2 and my current paystub.
Still waiting..
Got RFE on 4th of December, replied the same week, they got it on 27th of December. Online status says "Processing has resumed..!!!"
In RFE.. they asked for last year's W2 and my current paystub.
Still waiting..
more...
Abhishika
12-18 07:24 AM
Hi All,
I am also in similar situation. My labor says title as "Programmer Analyst"
and I have an offer as a Database Administrator.
If I look for onetcenter I am not seeing a direct code for "Programmer Analyst" but I see
a) 15-1051.00 Computer Systems Analysts
Sample of reported job titles: Systems Analyst, Programmer Analyst, Computer Systems Consultant, Business Systems Analyst, Systems Engineer, Computer Specialist, Computer Systems Analyst, Data Processing Systems Analyst, Information Technology Consultant (IT Consultant), Information Technology Specialist
b) 15-1021.00 Computer Programmers
Sample of reported job titles: Programmer Analyst, Programmer, Computer Programmer, Software Developer, Internet Programmer, Web Programmer
And when I search for the database administrator, it gives
15-1061.00 Database Administrators
Sample of reported job titles: Database Administrator (DBA), Database Analyst, Database Coordinator, Database Programmer, Programmer Analyst, Systems Manager
So should we look at the sample of reported job titles? If thats the case all the above mentions programmer Analyst.
Appreciate ur inputs
Abhi
I am also in similar situation. My labor says title as "Programmer Analyst"
and I have an offer as a Database Administrator.
If I look for onetcenter I am not seeing a direct code for "Programmer Analyst" but I see
a) 15-1051.00 Computer Systems Analysts
Sample of reported job titles: Systems Analyst, Programmer Analyst, Computer Systems Consultant, Business Systems Analyst, Systems Engineer, Computer Specialist, Computer Systems Analyst, Data Processing Systems Analyst, Information Technology Consultant (IT Consultant), Information Technology Specialist
b) 15-1021.00 Computer Programmers
Sample of reported job titles: Programmer Analyst, Programmer, Computer Programmer, Software Developer, Internet Programmer, Web Programmer
And when I search for the database administrator, it gives
15-1061.00 Database Administrators
Sample of reported job titles: Database Administrator (DBA), Database Analyst, Database Coordinator, Database Programmer, Programmer Analyst, Systems Manager
So should we look at the sample of reported job titles? If thats the case all the above mentions programmer Analyst.
Appreciate ur inputs
Abhi
shantanup
03-10 01:35 PM
E-mailed
more...
BharatPremi
12-10 12:46 PM
any suggestions if 140 is not approved?
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Yes. If I-140 is not approved, Do not use AC-21.
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Yes. If I-140 is not approved, Do not use AC-21.
Kalidindi
07-26 04:30 PM
The PD was current in August 2005 for EB2.
more...
waitforgc1
05-07 11:39 AM
Me and my wife also have LUD on 04/23/2009. And my priority date is Nov 2004
I think based on the information on other threads its usually normal nothing
can be derived of that LUD.
I think based on the information on other threads its usually normal nothing
can be derived of that LUD.
Rajeev
08-10 03:23 PM
I hope I am DEAD WRONG. But this seems too good to be true!
You can read the details of the bill at
Text of H.R.5658 as Introduced in House: SKIL Act of 2010 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5658/text)
Apart from the provisions mentioned in my previous post, there are other favorable provisions too.
You can read the details of the bill at
Text of H.R.5658 as Introduced in House: SKIL Act of 2010 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5658/text)
Apart from the provisions mentioned in my previous post, there are other favorable provisions too.
more...
jagran
07-31 03:11 PM
From where you got this fact? If this is the fact then PD won't be hovering in 2001 since last 5 years. In those days, PD for EB3 was always current so every body applied in EB3.
The Sept bulletin will be
EB2I - Dec 03
EB3I - U
The Sept bulletin will be
EB2I - Dec 03
EB3I - U
Oct007
11-02 12:54 PM
There are no plans for extended vacation.
I thought the 3 year h1b extension after 140 approval is a one time deal and there would be no further extensions :confused: .
I am not aware of the 12yr lifetime H1B limit. Can some one shed some light on this?
I thought the 3 year h1b extension after 140 approval is a one time deal and there would be no further extensions :confused: .
I am not aware of the 12yr lifetime H1B limit. Can some one shed some light on this?
more...
webm
10-05 01:17 PM
"7. Aytes said they are trying to set it up that next year the EAD and Advance Paroles will be issued for more than a one year expiration and that there may possibly be one document issued for both the EAD and APs. More on this will come by the end of the year"
This news is interesting..looking forward to it....:)
This news is interesting..looking forward to it....:)
mhtanim
09-20 11:26 PM
Thanks for the info. how about areas like simivalley, santa clarita, do you get houses for 300 to 350 and
And also around bay area- san roman, liver moore are they good neighbourhood. Also which has more jobs in datawarehousing is it LA or bayarea.
House prices in California have fallen significantly this year. However, they are still out of reach for most of the first time buyers. Simi Valley and Santa Clarita are nice places to live but still quite expensive. You may be able to find a townhouse for the range that you have mentioned. Please browse www.realtor.com and run some searches by cities to get an idea.
Remember, it's very difficult to get a loan nowadays. The lender will now check how much you really make. The general rule for qualifying a loan is that you need to make at least 1/3rd per year of the house that you are buying. For example: if you make $50K a year, you can qualify for a mortgage up to $50K*3=$150K and not more than that.
Good luck on your search.
And also around bay area- san roman, liver moore are they good neighbourhood. Also which has more jobs in datawarehousing is it LA or bayarea.
House prices in California have fallen significantly this year. However, they are still out of reach for most of the first time buyers. Simi Valley and Santa Clarita are nice places to live but still quite expensive. You may be able to find a townhouse for the range that you have mentioned. Please browse www.realtor.com and run some searches by cities to get an idea.
Remember, it's very difficult to get a loan nowadays. The lender will now check how much you really make. The general rule for qualifying a loan is that you need to make at least 1/3rd per year of the house that you are buying. For example: if you make $50K a year, you can qualify for a mortgage up to $50K*3=$150K and not more than that.
Good luck on your search.
genscn
10-02 12:42 PM
When you leave US, your I-94 attached to your passport (Old One) will be taken and once you re-enter, another I-94 (with same number as on your I-94 issued with your H-1B approval) will be issued and attached to your passport.
Hi,
What exactly is the deal with the 2 I-94s? We get one with the H1-approval and one when we enter/re-enter the country. Now when we leave the country they automatically take then I-94 attached to the passport. What happens to the I-94 with the H1B approval. Are we supposed to give that away as well? I have left and entered the country 2-3 times but never surrendered the I-94 attached to the h1B.
Can someone please let us know how this I-94 surrendering and numbering works?
Hi,
What exactly is the deal with the 2 I-94s? We get one with the H1-approval and one when we enter/re-enter the country. Now when we leave the country they automatically take then I-94 attached to the passport. What happens to the I-94 with the H1B approval. Are we supposed to give that away as well? I have left and entered the country 2-3 times but never surrendered the I-94 attached to the h1B.
Can someone please let us know how this I-94 surrendering and numbering works?
Sakthisagar
10-20 12:55 PM
there is no need for pro-immigrant senator to respond becoz as soon as they respond..... it will increase the visibility and importance of grassley..... many a times in politics, the purpose of putting out provocative statement is to provoke a response..... to that effect, no response is the best response.... it is better for california director to respond & fight with a sitting senator, which de-values grassley's perceived seniority.....
That means let Immigrants suffer in hell. with this ignorant guy's letters, and inturn USCIS responds and issues a dump memo on that letter again, and the suffering becomes more and more day by day. Is the republicans have majority or Democrats I have doubts about that. This bipartisan is a key word to do nothing and enjoy all the benefits of being the ruling side. There is no seniority issue here. These senators are weeds who make immigrants life miserable.
That means let Immigrants suffer in hell. with this ignorant guy's letters, and inturn USCIS responds and issues a dump memo on that letter again, and the suffering becomes more and more day by day. Is the republicans have majority or Democrats I have doubts about that. This bipartisan is a key word to do nothing and enjoy all the benefits of being the ruling side. There is no seniority issue here. These senators are weeds who make immigrants life miserable.
gc_peshwa
04-14 02:14 PM
Please contact ashwin_27/nmdial/snathan to add you to the I485 filing initiative. Thanks. If many more like you could join the battle...we'd be victorious by now....
No comments:
Post a Comment