trueguy
07-31 02:56 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.
Sorry but you guys seem to forget the fact that there were very few 2001, 2002 filers.
I dont know about 2003.
Sorry but you guys seem to forget the fact that there were very few 2001, 2002 filers.
I dont know about 2003.
GCWarrior
04-16 02:57 PM
Thanks for the quick response gurus. Would like to know if anyone else is in the same boat. Also because of this issue, my spouse is resigning her job and going out of US for a H4 stamp. Is there any way we can avoid it as it is a oversight issue?
Thanks
Thanks
dummgelauft
03-31 12:42 PM
For once, I like what Grassley is doing.
tabletpc
01-11 09:29 AM
Guys please help me with below questions.
Q1:I have switched from H-4 to H-1 starting from Oct 1st, 2007. However, I have not started working yet. Does this invalidate my h-1?
Nope..!!! Unless the employer revoke the H1b it won't be invalidated.
Q2: I am travelling to India very soon and planning to come back using AP obtained thru my husband's GC process. Will there be any problem. What should I tell at port of entry, if they ask about my approved H-1 but not worked on H-1?
Unless you come under the payroll of your H1b employer , POE people won't get to know. If att they ask, just be ready with a good reason.Q3. Do I need to cancel my H-1 before I ago since I am not going for H-1 stamping and also planning to work on EAD once I come back?
[B]Just plan your visit forgetting the fact that you ahve approved H1b. For all purpose you are on h4.
B]
I appreciate your advice
Have a nice trip..!!!
Q1:I have switched from H-4 to H-1 starting from Oct 1st, 2007. However, I have not started working yet. Does this invalidate my h-1?
Nope..!!! Unless the employer revoke the H1b it won't be invalidated.
Q2: I am travelling to India very soon and planning to come back using AP obtained thru my husband's GC process. Will there be any problem. What should I tell at port of entry, if they ask about my approved H-1 but not worked on H-1?
Unless you come under the payroll of your H1b employer , POE people won't get to know. If att they ask, just be ready with a good reason.Q3. Do I need to cancel my H-1 before I ago since I am not going for H-1 stamping and also planning to work on EAD once I come back?
[B]Just plan your visit forgetting the fact that you ahve approved H1b. For all purpose you are on h4.
B]
I appreciate your advice
Have a nice trip..!!!
more...
jungalee43
12-23 02:27 PM
I also received similar mail from my attorney. I have double assurance now. Thanks.
You should be fine. I have been in the exact same situation did not have any problems excepting secondary inspection in which no questions were asked.
You should be fine. I have been in the exact same situation did not have any problems excepting secondary inspection in which no questions were asked.
sam_hoosier
06-06 05:29 PM
Yes, you should be able to use AC21 to change employment (subject to the AC21 restrictions).
more...
desi3933
06-25 10:41 AM
I though such contracts are illegal in US?....It is employment at will.....that means they can kick you out anytime or you can leave anytime....maybe someone can clarify
This is one of the biggest myths amongst H1 workers in USA.
All depends the terms and wordings of the "Employment agreement". For example, if one is sent for 2 weeks training in, say, .Net 2.0 Technology and its cost is $8000, then agreement could have clause for paying back $8000 to employer if left employment within one year.
There are, of course, other things involved and it is a complex subject. In short, Employment Agreement given enough ammunitions for employer to file at least a civil suit against employee.
Please consult a good lawyer before signing any such contract.
Not a legal advice
-----------------------
desi3933 at gmail.com
This is one of the biggest myths amongst H1 workers in USA.
All depends the terms and wordings of the "Employment agreement". For example, if one is sent for 2 weeks training in, say, .Net 2.0 Technology and its cost is $8000, then agreement could have clause for paying back $8000 to employer if left employment within one year.
There are, of course, other things involved and it is a complex subject. In short, Employment Agreement given enough ammunitions for employer to file at least a civil suit against employee.
Please consult a good lawyer before signing any such contract.
Not a legal advice
-----------------------
desi3933 at gmail.com
dvb
07-28 02:24 PM
Your Payments When You Are Outside The United States (http://ssa.gov/international/countrylist4.htm) ??? What does this mean .... looks like you can claim benefits.
more...
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
gemini23
07-27 03:21 PM
thanks for all the answers.
more...
dbevis
July 15th, 2004, 07:45 PM
I hope they are, too. Some birds seem to feed the young much longer than others, even after they've left the nest. I'd suggest taking a large *Do Not Disturb* sign with you tomorrow. Or perhaps "Approach at Your Own Risk*.
:)"Be quiet, or I will bash you with this big lens!" (the people, not the birds!)
:)"Be quiet, or I will bash you with this big lens!" (the people, not the birds!)
manja
06-29 02:34 PM
My employer does not pay for dependent health insurance and I want to buy insurance for my wife. Does anyone know of any plan that covers pregnancy? So far I could not find one. I'm living in Texas.
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
eilsoe
10-03 12:43 PM
did ya...?
Hmm, must check it then....
Hmm, must check it then....
fall2004us
09-01 01:00 PM
Nice article...
Its really saddening, parents do so much for their kids and when they grow old, the kids cant take good care of them ??
My own cousins are like that two cousins (vice president of a reputed company and another one is a surgeon) put their mom to old age home, another cousin didnt even have medical insurace for his parents reason being he is a Dr and he can take care of them during any situation.
Its really saddening, parents do so much for their kids and when they grow old, the kids cant take good care of them ??
My own cousins are like that two cousins (vice president of a reputed company and another one is a surgeon) put their mom to old age home, another cousin didnt even have medical insurace for his parents reason being he is a Dr and he can take care of them during any situation.
more...
spicy_guy
11-24 04:47 PM
I prefer in this order.
- WellsFargo Money Transfer Service
- SBI
- ICICI
- WellsFargo Money Transfer Service
- SBI
- ICICI
alterego
08-06 01:10 PM
Congratulations.
Enjoy your new status.
Hope you will stay atleast partly involved. You have been tremendously energetic in you activities. We are all happy for you.
Enjoy your new status.
Hope you will stay atleast partly involved. You have been tremendously energetic in you activities. We are all happy for you.
more...
digital2k
08-03 06:27 PM
*
chanduv23
03-05 10:02 AM
As per my understanding here is how it is supposed to work
- One ONLY has to say whether he/she is Authorized to work for any employer in an unrestricted manner
- One ONLY has to say if he/she has a security clearance
- One ONLY has to say if he/she needs a visa sponsership now or in future
- Certain jobs may need that one has to be a US Citizen (not sure about this) - but there must be a valid reason as to why the job needs a US Citizen
Once an employment is offered, the employee has upto 72 hours from the day of joining to provide proof of work authorization and complete the i 9 form. The authorization must be original and the employer must verify this and take a copy and place it in the employee's folder.
Desi3933 or IV Attorneys - please pass on your comments.
This is very important because - due to economy, a lot of employers are coming up with arbitrary rules and applying arbitrary filters and will continue to do so as long as it is not challenged.
- One ONLY has to say whether he/she is Authorized to work for any employer in an unrestricted manner
- One ONLY has to say if he/she has a security clearance
- One ONLY has to say if he/she needs a visa sponsership now or in future
- Certain jobs may need that one has to be a US Citizen (not sure about this) - but there must be a valid reason as to why the job needs a US Citizen
Once an employment is offered, the employee has upto 72 hours from the day of joining to provide proof of work authorization and complete the i 9 form. The authorization must be original and the employer must verify this and take a copy and place it in the employee's folder.
Desi3933 or IV Attorneys - please pass on your comments.
This is very important because - due to economy, a lot of employers are coming up with arbitrary rules and applying arbitrary filters and will continue to do so as long as it is not challenged.
kurtz_wolfgang
08-15 01:05 PM
Please explain, Why did I get red? Is it for asking question? Guys, I am new.
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
GCAmigo
07-23 04:41 PM
My PERM was filed last November & Audit was replied in Feb'08.. still no no news..
No comments:
Post a Comment