Abhinaym
09-04 02:09 PM
That would be sweet I guess. My PD is Oct. 07. :)
Same here. Would like the prayers along with waitforevergc....
:D
Same here. Would like the prayers along with waitforevergc....
:D
wallpaper Purple Eyeshadow.
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
guy03062
05-17 10:11 AM
Would anyone please share contact info of Good and proven lawyer whose legal fees is reasonable or cheaper. My lawyer asking $1800 as legal fees (not filing fees) for H-1B extension which I guess is too much.
Thank you very much in advance.
Thank you very much in advance.
2011 Blue amp; Purple Eyeshadow
gc2
09-22 05:55 PM
Job A
OES/SOC Code: 15-1099
OES/SOC Title: Computer Specialists, All Other
OES/SOC Code: 15-1099
OES/SOC Title: Computer Specialists, All Other
more...
ImmigrationAnswerMan
06-29 10:35 PM
The answer is that there are restrictions on using experience gained in the position with the same company. The reason being that you cannot say that the minimum requirement for the position is a BA + 5 when you were hired for the position with less than a BA + 5 experience.
If you use experience gained with the same company the PERM application will be audited. One way to respond to the audit is by showing that you are filing for a different position than the one you gained the experience in and that the position for which you are filing is not substantially comparable to the position where you gained the experience.
My suggestion to you is that you use an experienced immigration attorney that you trust. The laws and procedures involved in filing a PERM application are so complicated and subtle that there are many immigration law attorneys who do not handle PERM cases. I know there are lots of companies that fumble their way through the process without an attorney and are lucky enough not to get audited, but that is just trusting your future to the luck of the draw.
If you use experience gained with the same company the PERM application will be audited. One way to respond to the audit is by showing that you are filing for a different position than the one you gained the experience in and that the position for which you are filing is not substantially comparable to the position where you gained the experience.
My suggestion to you is that you use an experienced immigration attorney that you trust. The laws and procedures involved in filing a PERM application are so complicated and subtle that there are many immigration law attorneys who do not handle PERM cases. I know there are lots of companies that fumble their way through the process without an attorney and are lucky enough not to get audited, but that is just trusting your future to the luck of the draw.
lord_labaku
12-16 01:40 AM
Your code has lot of syntax error. (for your reference - message window has spell check feature inbuilt)
Sorry..could not resist.
On a serious note, please read the AC21 rules and interpretation
Sorry..could not resist.
On a serious note, please read the AC21 rules and interpretation
more...
desi3933
07-20 04:58 PM
Let's assume Two people A and B entered into US on Jan 1st 2004 with Visa stamping Valid till June 2006.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
One is expected to know immigration laws. Who stopped Person B to re-enter USA before filing for I-485.
Not knowing laws is not a valid excuse.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
One is expected to know immigration laws. Who stopped Person B to re-enter USA before filing for I-485.
Not knowing laws is not a valid excuse.
2010 Makeup artists dreamed in
akhilmahajan
04-11 03:19 PM
Updating profile should fill up your information in the tracker.
Will make a not of it.
Thanks a lot.
GO IV GO
Will make a not of it.
Thanks a lot.
GO IV GO
more...
bhavana
05-24 07:51 AM
Good job Buddy
hair lue purple eyeshadow on a
yetanotherguyinline
01-18 01:48 PM
Great initiative Gopal :)
more...
narikg
06-15 11:09 PM
Passport should be valid for more than 6 months for applying I 485.
If somebody can answer that would begreat
If somebody can answer that would begreat
hot lue and purple makeup.
go_guy123
01-11 09:47 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
more...
house Fun Blue amp; Purple Makeup
raju6855
02-02 08:31 AM
Its been over 3 weeks since my wife have H4 interview and the passport is still under "admin processing". This week her AP came and I have mailed it to her and now we want to get the passport back and travel on AP.
Now if anyone knows or done the process of getting the passport back from Delhi Consulate, can they please explain?
Thx
Now if anyone knows or done the process of getting the passport back from Delhi Consulate, can they please explain?
Thx
tattoo green, and lue makeup to
hariswaminathan
01-10 02:57 PM
Its been 5 months , I'vent recieved the FP for myself. My case status still shows "The case has been transferred to Nebraska etc etc.."
Anybody in the same shoes?
Applied July 23rd NSC. Receipt notice July 23rd and again another receipt September once my case went to CSC and back to NSC.
Got AP and EAD issued from CA (laguna Niguel USCIS) though not without headaches (RFE on AP)
took infopass appointment last week and officer said FPs havent been issued because Background check still not cleared for me (wife cleared but she will not get FP notice until mine is cleared). This is possibly the same reason you have not received yours. looks like i am stuck for the long haul in name check clearance.
good luck to you!
Anybody in the same shoes?
Applied July 23rd NSC. Receipt notice July 23rd and again another receipt September once my case went to CSC and back to NSC.
Got AP and EAD issued from CA (laguna Niguel USCIS) though not without headaches (RFE on AP)
took infopass appointment last week and officer said FPs havent been issued because Background check still not cleared for me (wife cleared but she will not get FP notice until mine is cleared). This is possibly the same reason you have not received yours. looks like i am stuck for the long haul in name check clearance.
good luck to you!
more...
pictures BLUE AND PURPLE MAKEUP
virald
08-14 12:13 PM
My lawyer sent my I-485 to Vermont instead of Nebraska. I don't know what to do now. I am in lot of stress.
Can I send another application before Aug 17th. I have not got rejection on first one. Will this confuse USCIS?
Gurus, please advice
(BTW I have an approved I-140.)
Q6: What happens if an application is filed at the wrong Service Center?
A6. Forms I-485 should be filed at either the Texas or Nebraska Service Centers. However, through August 17, 2007 only, employment-based adjustment applications filed at the California and Vermont Service Centers will not be rejected and will be relocated to the appropriate Service Center. Filing at the wrong location could result in processing delays.
From http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
You should be okay
Can I send another application before Aug 17th. I have not got rejection on first one. Will this confuse USCIS?
Gurus, please advice
(BTW I have an approved I-140.)
Q6: What happens if an application is filed at the wrong Service Center?
A6. Forms I-485 should be filed at either the Texas or Nebraska Service Centers. However, through August 17, 2007 only, employment-based adjustment applications filed at the California and Vermont Service Centers will not be rejected and will be relocated to the appropriate Service Center. Filing at the wrong location could result in processing delays.
From http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
You should be okay
dresses by jennyjan16 in Makeup
chanduv23
04-27 10:15 AM
Ok, lets ignore or shut this down.
more...
makeup Maybelline UV Makeup Base in
lj_rr
08-06 12:52 PM
Congrats.
Labor filing date(not approval date) is your PD.What was the filing date?
It is EB2, labor approval date is my PD - No idea, why profile does not show up.
Labor filing date(not approval date) is your PD.What was the filing date?
It is EB2, labor approval date is my PD - No idea, why profile does not show up.
girlfriend lue and purple eyeshadows
felix31
02-12 04:59 PM
Folks,
employer's attorney claims that there is no such thing as H4 premium processing.
Can anyone point me to the correct memo where Premium filing was made available for I-539 applications?
I searched all Mathew-Oh updates dated one year ago and can't locate it.
I need to get that h4 under premium ASAP so that I can transfer to H1 in April.
Can anyone please help?
employer's attorney claims that there is no such thing as H4 premium processing.
Can anyone point me to the correct memo where Premium filing was made available for I-539 applications?
I searched all Mathew-Oh updates dated one year ago and can't locate it.
I need to get that h4 under premium ASAP so that I can transfer to H1 in April.
Can anyone please help?
hairstyles Heavy purple eye makeup idea!
sam_hoosier
12-17 10:53 AM
I have an offer from a great company as a program manager that involves management and coordination of teams. There will be a little programming involved. This is in the software industry
The labor was filed as software engineer whose description says that this was java focussed intense programming position.
I am EB2, india, dec 2003 with more that 180 days and 140 approved, also have my ead and AP done.
I plan to move on EAD. Would this qualify as "same or similar". The industry is the same and the job is similar (it just shows normal career progression)
what do you think?
Have you checked the job codes for the two jobs ? Just given this information, the new role does look similar. However, I would run this by an attorney just to be safe.
The labor was filed as software engineer whose description says that this was java focussed intense programming position.
I am EB2, india, dec 2003 with more that 180 days and 140 approved, also have my ead and AP done.
I plan to move on EAD. Would this qualify as "same or similar". The industry is the same and the job is similar (it just shows normal career progression)
what do you think?
Have you checked the job codes for the two jobs ? Just given this information, the new role does look similar. However, I would run this by an attorney just to be safe.
needhelp!
01-18 01:14 PM
Wonderful news!
And gsc is back with a bang!
And gsc is back with a bang!
sands_14
06-12 11:55 AM
i tried infopass last yr,it didnt help;they said uscis will take it when its up for approval.current pd doesnt matter;it matters only if its approved and waiting for visa number
No comments:
Post a Comment