kaisersose
11-10 02:32 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....
Nope. Management activities fall into a different job code and you will be breaking AC21 rules by taking up this new role.
If your employer is cooperative and your lawyer is willing write the new job description to fall into the engineering category and not management, you may be OK. But if it is an "awesome" company as you put it, I doubt they will be willing to manipulate your job description.
Anyway, check with them and the lawyer before you give up.
Good luck
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....
Nope. Management activities fall into a different job code and you will be breaking AC21 rules by taking up this new role.
If your employer is cooperative and your lawyer is willing write the new job description to fall into the engineering category and not management, you may be OK. But if it is an "awesome" company as you put it, I doubt they will be willing to manipulate your job description.
Anyway, check with them and the lawyer before you give up.
Good luck
wallpaper Peanut Butter Jelly Time
jettu77
07-17 06:40 PM
So, they were decided on July 13th itself...
Department of State Publication 9514
CA/VO:July 13, 2007
Department of State Publication 9514
CA/VO:July 13, 2007
EB-VoiceImmigration
02-24 08:50 PM
Moving to the Faster Lane : Changing EB3 to EB2
We at the Murthy Law Firm receive many inquiries as to whether it is possible for an individual with an employment-based, third preference (EB3) case to change to the employment-based, second preference (EB2) category. As explained in this article, it is possible for many some people to make this transition. When combined with the potential to retain the priority date from the earlier employment-based (EB) case, this can be a powerful tool for qualified individuals to obtain permanent residence, or the "green card," much earlier.
EB3 Cannot Simply be Changed to EB2
Often individuals ask whether their current EB3 cases can somehow be converted to EB2s. They will usually mention that they had enough education and/or experience to meet the EB2 requirements at the time the EB3 case was filed. The answer to this is simply, "No." The EB category of any labor certification-based case is set at the beginning, when the labor certification is prepared and filed. The category depends on the requirements specified in the labor certification. If these requirements are at the EB3 level, then the case is filed as an EB3, even if the foreign national beneficiary may have qualifications in terms of the education and work experience sufficient for an EB2 level job.
New EB2 Case Filing Based on Minimum Job Requirements
It is possible for an individual with an EB3 case to have either the existing employer / sponsor or a new employer file a new case in the EB2 category. Of course, the new position must meet the EB2 requirements, and the individual must qualify for the offered position. The starting point must always be with the job requirements, not one's own education and experience. It is the job that must fit within the EB2 category, as the law requires that the employer specify the minimum education and other qualifications for the specific job. Then, of course, the beneficiary must be able to establish that s/he meets the education and experience required for the job.
New EB2 Filing Permissible with Job Change
It is not unusual for an individual with an EB3 case to qualify for EB2. This happens when one acquires additional education and/or experience through the years during which the EB3 case has been pending. Over time, people often are promoted into jobs that may meet the EB2 requirements.
Typically, questions about potentially changing to EB2 come from individuals who have reached the point where they have filed their I-485s. They have waited for a number of years, but are suffering under the enormous waiting times in the EB3 category. Many have used AC21 to change jobs, are advancing in their careers, and now hold jobs that could meet the EB2 standards.
EB2 Filing can be with Existing or New Employer
As explained above, in order to move from EB3 to EB2 it is necessary to start over with an entirely new labor certification. This often is filed through a new employer, when an individual has moved to a different job.
It potentially could be filed through the same employer that filed the EB3 labor certification. This could be appropriate if one obtained a promotion or otherwise moved into an EB2 job. If filing through the same employer, the employee ideally should have completed the minimum years of work experience for the EB2 position before starting work with the current employer. This is because there are legal issues and potential restrictions when relying on the experience gained with the same employer to qualify for the new job. These issues should be analyzed and discussed with an attorney experienced and knowledgeable immigration law.
Transfer of Earlier Priority Date to New Case Filing
The greatest benefit to utilizing the strategy of re-filing comes in the potential to retain the priority date from the EB3 case. This option exists if the EB3 I-140 petition has been approved. If so, then it is possible to request retention of this priority date in the later-filed EB2 case. This means that it potentially is possible to transfer the earlier EB3 priority date to the later-filed EB2 case with a new or the same employer. In many cases, this means that the individual could have a current or closer-to-current priority date, thus saving many years of waiting to become eligible for permanent residence.
There are some issues with respect to retention of the priority date if the I-140 has been revoked. Generally, however, it is the policy of the USCIS to allow the retention and transfer of the earlier priority date if the I-140 petition has not been revoked by the USCIS for fraud or misrepresentation.
Is Earlier EB3 Filing Made Vulnerable by Filing New EB2?
Most people inquiring about this option are concerned about any potential risks to their current EB3 cases. There are some procedural options with respect to the final step in the re-filed cases. However, it is possible to process the new case without risk of disruption to the EB3 case. This assumes that all information provided in the course of the prior filing was accurate.
A new labor certification filing, even if not approved, would not disrupt a prior approval. The same holds true for an I-140 filing. Conversely, approvals of the labor certification and I-140 do not disrupt or displace existing approvals. It is possible to have multiple approvals of labor certifications and I-140s for the same individual. Even when the request to retain the earlier priority date from the EB3 case is granted, the prior EB3 case remains undisturbed. There is nothing transferred or taken away from the EB3 case in the process of requesting that the EB2 case be assigned the same priority date.
At the final stage, there are options as to how to complete the case. The pros and cons should be discussed with a qualified immigration attorney. It is possible to proceed with the cases essentially in parallel, allowing for two cases and two potential avenues for eventual approval of permanent residence. The best way to proceed depends upon one's situation and, ideally, should be analyzed to consider the risks and options. What is helpful to most people, however, is that they do not have to risk their current EB3 cases to try to move to EB2.
Conclusion
At the Murthy Law Firm, we have successfully utilized the strategy discussed in this article for many of our clients by filing for each a new EB2 case with the same or a new employer. While it requires starting over with a new labor certification, for many it offers a significant advantage in terms of timing when the earlier priority date can be retained. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers who wish to explore this option further should contact the Murthy Law Firm to help them with this process or for a consultation to determine whether it is appropriate for them.
Copyright � 2010, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved
We at the Murthy Law Firm receive many inquiries as to whether it is possible for an individual with an employment-based, third preference (EB3) case to change to the employment-based, second preference (EB2) category. As explained in this article, it is possible for many some people to make this transition. When combined with the potential to retain the priority date from the earlier employment-based (EB) case, this can be a powerful tool for qualified individuals to obtain permanent residence, or the "green card," much earlier.
EB3 Cannot Simply be Changed to EB2
Often individuals ask whether their current EB3 cases can somehow be converted to EB2s. They will usually mention that they had enough education and/or experience to meet the EB2 requirements at the time the EB3 case was filed. The answer to this is simply, "No." The EB category of any labor certification-based case is set at the beginning, when the labor certification is prepared and filed. The category depends on the requirements specified in the labor certification. If these requirements are at the EB3 level, then the case is filed as an EB3, even if the foreign national beneficiary may have qualifications in terms of the education and work experience sufficient for an EB2 level job.
New EB2 Case Filing Based on Minimum Job Requirements
It is possible for an individual with an EB3 case to have either the existing employer / sponsor or a new employer file a new case in the EB2 category. Of course, the new position must meet the EB2 requirements, and the individual must qualify for the offered position. The starting point must always be with the job requirements, not one's own education and experience. It is the job that must fit within the EB2 category, as the law requires that the employer specify the minimum education and other qualifications for the specific job. Then, of course, the beneficiary must be able to establish that s/he meets the education and experience required for the job.
New EB2 Filing Permissible with Job Change
It is not unusual for an individual with an EB3 case to qualify for EB2. This happens when one acquires additional education and/or experience through the years during which the EB3 case has been pending. Over time, people often are promoted into jobs that may meet the EB2 requirements.
Typically, questions about potentially changing to EB2 come from individuals who have reached the point where they have filed their I-485s. They have waited for a number of years, but are suffering under the enormous waiting times in the EB3 category. Many have used AC21 to change jobs, are advancing in their careers, and now hold jobs that could meet the EB2 standards.
EB2 Filing can be with Existing or New Employer
As explained above, in order to move from EB3 to EB2 it is necessary to start over with an entirely new labor certification. This often is filed through a new employer, when an individual has moved to a different job.
It potentially could be filed through the same employer that filed the EB3 labor certification. This could be appropriate if one obtained a promotion or otherwise moved into an EB2 job. If filing through the same employer, the employee ideally should have completed the minimum years of work experience for the EB2 position before starting work with the current employer. This is because there are legal issues and potential restrictions when relying on the experience gained with the same employer to qualify for the new job. These issues should be analyzed and discussed with an attorney experienced and knowledgeable immigration law.
Transfer of Earlier Priority Date to New Case Filing
The greatest benefit to utilizing the strategy of re-filing comes in the potential to retain the priority date from the EB3 case. This option exists if the EB3 I-140 petition has been approved. If so, then it is possible to request retention of this priority date in the later-filed EB2 case. This means that it potentially is possible to transfer the earlier EB3 priority date to the later-filed EB2 case with a new or the same employer. In many cases, this means that the individual could have a current or closer-to-current priority date, thus saving many years of waiting to become eligible for permanent residence.
There are some issues with respect to retention of the priority date if the I-140 has been revoked. Generally, however, it is the policy of the USCIS to allow the retention and transfer of the earlier priority date if the I-140 petition has not been revoked by the USCIS for fraud or misrepresentation.
Is Earlier EB3 Filing Made Vulnerable by Filing New EB2?
Most people inquiring about this option are concerned about any potential risks to their current EB3 cases. There are some procedural options with respect to the final step in the re-filed cases. However, it is possible to process the new case without risk of disruption to the EB3 case. This assumes that all information provided in the course of the prior filing was accurate.
A new labor certification filing, even if not approved, would not disrupt a prior approval. The same holds true for an I-140 filing. Conversely, approvals of the labor certification and I-140 do not disrupt or displace existing approvals. It is possible to have multiple approvals of labor certifications and I-140s for the same individual. Even when the request to retain the earlier priority date from the EB3 case is granted, the prior EB3 case remains undisturbed. There is nothing transferred or taken away from the EB3 case in the process of requesting that the EB2 case be assigned the same priority date.
At the final stage, there are options as to how to complete the case. The pros and cons should be discussed with a qualified immigration attorney. It is possible to proceed with the cases essentially in parallel, allowing for two cases and two potential avenues for eventual approval of permanent residence. The best way to proceed depends upon one's situation and, ideally, should be analyzed to consider the risks and options. What is helpful to most people, however, is that they do not have to risk their current EB3 cases to try to move to EB2.
Conclusion
At the Murthy Law Firm, we have successfully utilized the strategy discussed in this article for many of our clients by filing for each a new EB2 case with the same or a new employer. While it requires starting over with a new labor certification, for many it offers a significant advantage in terms of timing when the earlier priority date can be retained. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers who wish to explore this option further should contact the Murthy Law Firm to help them with this process or for a consultation to determine whether it is appropriate for them.
Copyright � 2010, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved
2011 Peanut Butter Jelly Time
gc_maine2
05-24 08:36 AM
Good job Salil. Keep up the good work.
more...
gc_kaavaali
12-24 10:25 PM
this thread should be on top
kumar26fl
09-22 11:53 PM
"Word-of-Mouth" seems to be the most effective way of campaigning! I had sent mails, and left voice to couple of my friends some time back. They became aware of IV, but not yet registered. Talked to them today, and got both of them registered. (kasas & aksrao).
Requested them to spread the word, "IV". I am sure they will read this thread and campaign for "IV".
Thanks
Requested them to spread the word, "IV". I am sure they will read this thread and campaign for "IV".
Thanks
more...
st4rguitar
04-14 08:34 PM
Yeah, that stinks, big time. Just have your HR or attorney contact them every month or 2 months, definitely. MTR/R4R/Appeal, yes, synonymous usage - proper term at the PERM level is "Request for Review."
is MTR the same thing as Appeal?? so far I haven't heard from the Appeal borad. as I mentioned before the HR Manager sent them a letter at the end of Jan 2008 requesting an update on my appeal but she hasn't heard anything from them. this is really taking forever. all we want them to do is to make a decision, either accept the appeal or deny, so i can move on.
is MTR the same thing as Appeal?? so far I haven't heard from the Appeal borad. as I mentioned before the HR Manager sent them a letter at the end of Jan 2008 requesting an update on my appeal but she hasn't heard anything from them. this is really taking forever. all we want them to do is to make a decision, either accept the appeal or deny, so i can move on.
2010 YAY PEANUT BUTTER JELLY,
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...
rbms
03-06 02:35 PM
Yep, email id please
hair Peanut Butter amp; Jelly
gceverywhere
09-14 03:15 PM
call the attorney who is working on your case and ask if it's a good idea to go...
You will be surprised...Most attorneys are of the opinion that this rally is important and people who are impacted by EB GC dealys should meet with lawmakers to discuss the issue.
You will be surprised...Most attorneys are of the opinion that this rally is important and people who are impacted by EB GC dealys should meet with lawmakers to discuss the issue.
more...
ravi.shah
02-07 10:44 AM
Thanks for the update !
I am watching this... looks pretty interesting :)
I am watching this... looks pretty interesting :)
hot Peanut Butter and Jelly Scones
petersebastian
04-01 06:00 PM
Apply for GC...as you become illegal its easier to get GC. Only people who legal and law obeying to need to be in line for years.
And I can't apply for a green card, I don't meet the criteria...I'd have to get married with a woman.
And I can't apply for a green card, I don't meet the criteria...I'd have to get married with a woman.
more...
house Some sweet Peanut Butter Jelly
myeb2gc
04-25 11:46 PM
Hi ram,
I am exactly in similer situation as you in.
I have the following question:
# When you did your H1 transfer, how many years you got extension?
# What are the documents that you sent to COMPANY B?
# When employer A is good to take you back to his company before filing 485 why are you filing labour again!!!, I understand that for safer side you were filing labour again, I am trying to know does employer A should revoke 140 since we left him (Is this rule / Law to revoke 140's of non existing employee!!!)
I am exactly in similer situation as you in.
I have the following question:
# When you did your H1 transfer, how many years you got extension?
# What are the documents that you sent to COMPANY B?
# When employer A is good to take you back to his company before filing 485 why are you filing labour again!!!, I understand that for safer side you were filing labour again, I am trying to know does employer A should revoke 140 since we left him (Is this rule / Law to revoke 140's of non existing employee!!!)
tattoo Peanut butter jelly time!
GCard_Dream
06-18 04:42 PM
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
Support CIR only after seeing something for EB non-ROW or atleast legal immigration in general.
We need to oppose CIR till we see such a provision.
Support CIR only after seeing something for EB non-ROW or atleast legal immigration in general.
We need to oppose CIR till we see such a provision.
more...
pictures Peanut Butter Jelly Button
Anders �stberg
April 17th, 2004, 12:56 PM
]']I only own a Tamron 28-200 XR at the moment :), mounted in my 300D :) . But maybe is possible to create big bubbles using bath gel... I should try :D .
Definitely has the potential for a clean shot! :p
(Ugghh, bad joke)
Definitely has the potential for a clean shot! :p
(Ugghh, bad joke)
dresses Peanut Butter Jelly Bark |
travellertvr
03-22 03:15 PM
smuggymba,
Old I-94 expiration date was January 3, 2010, and new I-94 started from October 18, 2010.
Old I-94 expiration date was January 3, 2010, and new I-94 started from October 18, 2010.
more...
makeup Boys – Peanut Butter Jelly
Suva
01-26 01:22 PM
You are absolutely right. I have also completely lost the hope about it.
Yeah....in 2011 again it will be viewed too late for CIR, because in 2012 they have to face presidential election and incumbent president would be preparing for 2nd term. And again there will be a promise for CIR and 2013 will be a fresh year, 2014 will be a mid-term election year, 2015 will be too late for the term as they have to face presidential elections in 2016. Cycle repeats...after 5 cycles (i.e. 20 years) we all will get GC or kicked out of queue by issuing rfe/memo or totally frustrated and gone back to our home country or we might be still waiting in line for CIR to rescue us.
Along with election cycle there will be economic cycles. When cycle-of-politics favors the CIR, cycle-of-economy unfavors CIR and vice versa. Instead of reading pages and pages of news and blogs simply read it as 'CIR will never happen'.
Yeah....in 2011 again it will be viewed too late for CIR, because in 2012 they have to face presidential election and incumbent president would be preparing for 2nd term. And again there will be a promise for CIR and 2013 will be a fresh year, 2014 will be a mid-term election year, 2015 will be too late for the term as they have to face presidential elections in 2016. Cycle repeats...after 5 cycles (i.e. 20 years) we all will get GC or kicked out of queue by issuing rfe/memo or totally frustrated and gone back to our home country or we might be still waiting in line for CIR to rescue us.
Along with election cycle there will be economic cycles. When cycle-of-politics favors the CIR, cycle-of-economy unfavors CIR and vice versa. Instead of reading pages and pages of news and blogs simply read it as 'CIR will never happen'.
girlfriend Peanut butter and jelly.
rsayed
04-27 11:07 AM
whether the incident is true or not, IV member is trying caution everybody that all should be very careful when handing over their passport to a third person. We should be fully focused when an officer examines our passport.
Very true - you would think such things don't happen (and they probably don't) - but one should always be attentive at Airports.
Very true - you would think such things don't happen (and they probably don't) - but one should always be attentive at Airports.
hairstyles Do You Eat Peanut Butter And
nixstor
11-14 02:51 PM
Lawyer told me that I cannot contest. They screwed it up some thing
What the hell?? Its your right to know what happened with your case and why it was rejected. Ask them and get more information about where things went wrong. Damn BEC's dont answer on status telling that its freaking lawyers and employers property and here lawyers and employers appear not to tell the beneficiary what happened, even after sucking the crap out of his brain for 4 yrs
What the hell?? Its your right to know what happened with your case and why it was rejected. Ask them and get more information about where things went wrong. Damn BEC's dont answer on status telling that its freaking lawyers and employers property and here lawyers and employers appear not to tell the beneficiary what happened, even after sucking the crap out of his brain for 4 yrs
meyshimmi
02-06 07:48 PM
Is it me or has there been no posts of recent I-485 denials after using AC21???? If there are, sorry, maybe I haven't seen any lately... If there are none, maybe USCIS has realized their mistake???
I wonder what happened to the conference call with the Ombudsman...
I wonder what happened to the conference call with the Ombudsman...
lacrossegc
12-21 01:20 PM
Its in the Visa Bulletin itself
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second
preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second
preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
0 comments:
Post a Comment