WillIBLucky
12-13 11:58 AM
Surprising right? May be this is the first time anyone would have posted this kind of post but yes I am in that situation.
I am EB2 and retrogressed with I-140 cleared. I am working for a client and they are willing to take me in and process my fresh green card. I am not too keen about it because they said they can file only on EB3.
My PD is Sept 2005. Now can you guys give our your honest opinion in what you would have done if you were in similar situation. The client is a good top 10 client and you will have a stable job that is garunteed.
Appreciate your thoughts to help my plan.
I am EB2 and retrogressed with I-140 cleared. I am working for a client and they are willing to take me in and process my fresh green card. I am not too keen about it because they said they can file only on EB3.
My PD is Sept 2005. Now can you guys give our your honest opinion in what you would have done if you were in similar situation. The client is a good top 10 client and you will have a stable job that is garunteed.
Appreciate your thoughts to help my plan.
wallpaper curly chestnut brown hair;
rajuram
05-06 11:17 PM
I am a jul 2007 filer, EB3 India, Priority Date 4/2002.
Around 10 days ago, I got a soft lud for the first time on my 485!!! Since my PD is not current, why would LUD change? Does it mean that they are looking at it?
Around 10 days ago, I got a soft lud for the first time on my 485!!! Since my PD is not current, why would LUD change? Does it mean that they are looking at it?
anilsal
08-15 12:11 PM
USCIS is making contradictory statements. First they release an update that they have processed all applications mailed before July 1 but when I call customer service and tell them that my application was mailed on June 11 and that I am still waiting for the checks to be cashed they say wait for 90 days.
Many July 2nd filers have had their checks cashed (as per ). Have you verified that your application reached on June 11 via fedex?
Many July 2nd filers have had their checks cashed (as per ). Have you verified that your application reached on June 11 via fedex?
2011 images Chestnut Brown Hair
johny120
08-23 11:14 AM
I have a approved I-140 (Jan 2005). My PD is March 2004 and I have already filed I-485 (filed simultaneously with 140). Now I am waiting for the PD to become current for 485 approval. My 6 years on H1 will expire in March 2007. I checked with my GC lawyer and he said that since I have a approved 140 I can apply for a 3 year extension on H1 six months before the H1 expiry. I have to travel to India in Feb-March 2007 and so my questions are:
1. Can I travel to India while my H1 extension application is still pending and return to US before the current H1 expires? What will happen if the application gets approved while I am in India?
2. If I get my H1 extension approved effective April 2007 and I travel to India in Feb-March 2007 while my current H1 is still valid do I still need to get the new H1 stamped on the passport or I can enter US on the current stamped H1.
3. If none of the above is possible then can I return from India in mid-March 2007 and apply for H1 ext and still continue to stay in US if I get the receipt of H1 ext application before March 31, 2007?
Thanks in advance.
1. Can I travel to India while my H1 extension application is still pending and return to US before the current H1 expires? What will happen if the application gets approved while I am in India?
2. If I get my H1 extension approved effective April 2007 and I travel to India in Feb-March 2007 while my current H1 is still valid do I still need to get the new H1 stamped on the passport or I can enter US on the current stamped H1.
3. If none of the above is possible then can I return from India in mid-March 2007 and apply for H1 ext and still continue to stay in US if I get the receipt of H1 ext application before March 31, 2007?
Thanks in advance.
more...
Eb3_frustrated
07-31 11:09 AM
Your wife can work as along the date on EAD is valid, EAD is employee authorization, it not a visa status unlike H4. She can have a EAD and be on H4 at the same time. It does not matter if you filed an extension for H4 but she can work if the EAD is valid ie end date on EAD has not passed.
This is just my thought based on my experience, remember I am not an attorney, consult one if you need dependable answer.
This is just my thought based on my experience, remember I am not an attorney, consult one if you need dependable answer.
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...
jnayar2006
12-28 05:40 PM
Some in this situation are planning to do the full time MBA from the IIMs / ISB under NRI quota
I am not sure how useful doing an MBA from an Indian school would be if one is planning to get back to the U.S. (or the western world in general) I did mine from IIM Ahmedabad, and find it pretty much worthless here.
I am not sure how useful doing an MBA from an Indian school would be if one is planning to get back to the U.S. (or the western world in general) I did mine from IIM Ahmedabad, and find it pretty much worthless here.
2010 Naturtint Permanent Hair
saimrathi
07-03 11:41 AM
Dont tell me you never take vacation ;-) If that is true, I will hire you.
Please hire me.. since you are all set yourself... Lets be practical.. I think contacting the media should be your top priority.. I have done it already, why dont u use your precious time there...
Please hire me.. since you are all set yourself... Lets be practical.. I think contacting the media should be your top priority.. I have done it already, why dont u use your precious time there...
more...
insbaby
04-08 12:40 PM
Its time to file for my EAD. I was wondering what option people prefer most these days. Online or Paper?
Please vote.
Paper is at least $150 more (lawyer fee), but saves your visit to INS office for finger printing.
Please vote.
Paper is at least $150 more (lawyer fee), but saves your visit to INS office for finger printing.
hair Jessica Simpson Hair Do 22in
chanduv23
11-06 10:09 AM
Jet airways resumed new service to US recently. That's why you couldn't find many people traveling by Jet airways. I heard the flights are new, service is good and the travel is quite comfortable. I am travelling to chennai from EWR end of november and am looking forward to the trip.
Great to know, now I feel comfortable :)
Great to know, now I feel comfortable :)
more...
nrakkati
08-15 12:28 PM
Congrats and welcome to IV, hope you become an active member and contribute your efforts to IV.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
hot Chestnut brown hair color
srikondoji
07-05 11:33 AM
Create a seperate forum message for 'sending flowers'. And then we should all digg that message so that even media covers this practise.
--sri
PLEASE DIGG
http://digg.com/politics/Reversal_Frustrates_Green_Card_Applicants
--sri
PLEASE DIGG
http://digg.com/politics/Reversal_Frustrates_Green_Card_Applicants
more...
house Naturtint Permanent Hair
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
tattoo hair-extension-color-chart-6-
logiclife
04-06 01:28 AM
As of 10:25 PM PST wednesday, here is where the Senate stands:
1. Bill Frist has proposed a 3-tier solution for 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Tier 1:
Illegals who have been here 5+ years can apply for guestworker program and GC(later) without returning home. Plus the usual - fines, back-taxes, english learning, apologizing to Uncle Sam (ok, I made the last one up ;))
Tier 2:
Illegals who have been here between 2-5 years have to go to port-of-entry to get guest-worker visa and then re-enter and eventually apply for GC.
Tier 3:
Illegals who have been here for less than 2 years have to go back to home country and apply for guest-worker visa (Back to the end of the line). In other words, deportation.
Bill Frist worked this compromise arrangement for the undocumented. Main players behind the scenes are supposed to be Chuck Hagel, Mel Martinez, John McCain and Lindsey Graham on this 3-tier approach of compromise bill.
2. Parliamentary Procedures:
Frist:
Bill Frist went to the Senate floor Wednesday night (around 9:30 PM EST) with a parliamentary motion to send the compromise to the Judiciary Committee for ratification, then scheduled a vote for Friday to cut off debate on that motion.
Reid
Harry Reid has filed a motion to invoke cloture, scheduled for 10:30 AM EST on Thursday. If the cloture succeeds then the debate on SJC version of the bill will be over and a final vote will follow. The SJC bill goes pretty much as-is to a final vote where a simple majority(51 votes) will be enough for it to pass the Senate.
3. The analysis:
The whole thing started when Kyl proposed an amendment to exclude illegals who had felonies to gaining permenant residency or citizenship. That would exclude hundred of thousands who had deportation orders pending or who had been deported by again re-entered.
Democrats, afraid that the original intent of SJC version - mainly to bring people out of shadows will fail if republicans keep chipping away at the provisions with amendments like Kyl's amendment.
So Reid, in a high-risk game, filed a motion for cloture. He probably has 38-40 Democrats on his side plus around 18 republicans. However, nothing is guaranteed. Most of media articles say that his motion will fail. In a rare chance that he succeeds, he will have the "Bargaining power" because of 60 senators' support for him and the SJC version and he will have a lot of fun at the expense of Kyl/Cronyn/Sessions etc. This is highly unusual. Cloture is usually filed by the majority party that wants the minority to shut up and force an up-or-down vote. In this case, THE MINORITY leader has filed a motion for cloture. A total reversal of roles.
4. Our Interest
First of all, from view-point of immigration voice, we would ideally want Reid's cloture to fail, Bill Frists' latest compromise to get ratified in SJC, come back to floor for debates and amendments and succeed on Friday. Dems and Republicans "Kiss and make-up" and everyone gets something. Here's why: If the motion of Reid succeeds, the scope of getting it changed for 485 filing and removing hard-cap gets smaller as SJC version will be popular with 60-plus senators and Reid would be unwilling to play with delicate balance. On the other side, if Dems fail, then Frist's bill would be open for debates and amendments, making it possible to get provisions to make OUR lives better.
However, on the flip side, if Reid fails then whatever Frist brings to table will have almost no support of Dems. Then he too risks getting filibustered when HE files for cloture on his 3-tier version. He wont have 60 votes of his own to beat fillibuster because Dems would oppose him for being tough on illegals and Republicans like Cornyn-Kyl-Sessions etc would also oppose him because the 3-tier version would still have traces of Amnesty and its "Loose" on illegals.
5. What's Happening Wednesday night:
Harry Reid has promised he will be up all night in his PJs and review Frist's 3-tier solution. Cookes and milk are on the way from IV to him for some midnight reading. But he makes no promises. Cornyn and Kyl are still unhappy as 3-tier bill still smells of amnesty. McCain is angry at Reid and will support his party's stand and oppose Reid's motion for cloture. (edited)
Harry Reid
http://www.grassrootspa.com/uploaded_images/HarryRedi44333-734905.jpg
Bill Frist
http://skaroff.com/blog/wp-content/photos/images389071_Frist.jpg
1. Bill Frist has proposed a 3-tier solution for 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Tier 1:
Illegals who have been here 5+ years can apply for guestworker program and GC(later) without returning home. Plus the usual - fines, back-taxes, english learning, apologizing to Uncle Sam (ok, I made the last one up ;))
Tier 2:
Illegals who have been here between 2-5 years have to go to port-of-entry to get guest-worker visa and then re-enter and eventually apply for GC.
Tier 3:
Illegals who have been here for less than 2 years have to go back to home country and apply for guest-worker visa (Back to the end of the line). In other words, deportation.
Bill Frist worked this compromise arrangement for the undocumented. Main players behind the scenes are supposed to be Chuck Hagel, Mel Martinez, John McCain and Lindsey Graham on this 3-tier approach of compromise bill.
2. Parliamentary Procedures:
Frist:
Bill Frist went to the Senate floor Wednesday night (around 9:30 PM EST) with a parliamentary motion to send the compromise to the Judiciary Committee for ratification, then scheduled a vote for Friday to cut off debate on that motion.
Reid
Harry Reid has filed a motion to invoke cloture, scheduled for 10:30 AM EST on Thursday. If the cloture succeeds then the debate on SJC version of the bill will be over and a final vote will follow. The SJC bill goes pretty much as-is to a final vote where a simple majority(51 votes) will be enough for it to pass the Senate.
3. The analysis:
The whole thing started when Kyl proposed an amendment to exclude illegals who had felonies to gaining permenant residency or citizenship. That would exclude hundred of thousands who had deportation orders pending or who had been deported by again re-entered.
Democrats, afraid that the original intent of SJC version - mainly to bring people out of shadows will fail if republicans keep chipping away at the provisions with amendments like Kyl's amendment.
So Reid, in a high-risk game, filed a motion for cloture. He probably has 38-40 Democrats on his side plus around 18 republicans. However, nothing is guaranteed. Most of media articles say that his motion will fail. In a rare chance that he succeeds, he will have the "Bargaining power" because of 60 senators' support for him and the SJC version and he will have a lot of fun at the expense of Kyl/Cronyn/Sessions etc. This is highly unusual. Cloture is usually filed by the majority party that wants the minority to shut up and force an up-or-down vote. In this case, THE MINORITY leader has filed a motion for cloture. A total reversal of roles.
4. Our Interest
First of all, from view-point of immigration voice, we would ideally want Reid's cloture to fail, Bill Frists' latest compromise to get ratified in SJC, come back to floor for debates and amendments and succeed on Friday. Dems and Republicans "Kiss and make-up" and everyone gets something. Here's why: If the motion of Reid succeeds, the scope of getting it changed for 485 filing and removing hard-cap gets smaller as SJC version will be popular with 60-plus senators and Reid would be unwilling to play with delicate balance. On the other side, if Dems fail, then Frist's bill would be open for debates and amendments, making it possible to get provisions to make OUR lives better.
However, on the flip side, if Reid fails then whatever Frist brings to table will have almost no support of Dems. Then he too risks getting filibustered when HE files for cloture on his 3-tier version. He wont have 60 votes of his own to beat fillibuster because Dems would oppose him for being tough on illegals and Republicans like Cornyn-Kyl-Sessions etc would also oppose him because the 3-tier version would still have traces of Amnesty and its "Loose" on illegals.
5. What's Happening Wednesday night:
Harry Reid has promised he will be up all night in his PJs and review Frist's 3-tier solution. Cookes and milk are on the way from IV to him for some midnight reading. But he makes no promises. Cornyn and Kyl are still unhappy as 3-tier bill still smells of amnesty. McCain is angry at Reid and will support his party's stand and oppose Reid's motion for cloture. (edited)
Harry Reid
http://www.grassrootspa.com/uploaded_images/HarryRedi44333-734905.jpg
Bill Frist
http://skaroff.com/blog/wp-content/photos/images389071_Frist.jpg
more...
pictures Chestnut Brown Hair With
antihero
11-27 12:36 AM
If we have an AP, then do we still require a transit visa?
I am thinking of traveling by qatar airlines. I believe they dont have any transit visa requirement.
I am thinking of traveling by qatar airlines. I believe they dont have any transit visa requirement.
dresses I like black hair, but I just
snathan
03-19 07:58 PM
What are (if any) the tax implications > if a H1b or EAD holder sells his/her house?
From what i knew there were no special "taxes" or implications... but someone (a lawyer) recently told me in addition to everything else there is a 10% tax (federal) on selling price?
Can anyone who has sold a property on h1 or EAD confirm this?
Please share first hand experience and not something that someones heard through the grapevine
I think you need to talk to the CPA for tax and not lawyer....
From what i knew there were no special "taxes" or implications... but someone (a lawyer) recently told me in addition to everything else there is a 10% tax (federal) on selling price?
Can anyone who has sold a property on h1 or EAD confirm this?
Please share first hand experience and not something that someones heard through the grapevine
I think you need to talk to the CPA for tax and not lawyer....
more...
makeup Chestnut brown.. *nice*
solaris27
08-15 08:58 AM
http://boards.immigration.com/blog.php?b=36
girlfriend Chestnut brown weave w/ wavy
logiclife
03-28 03:39 PM
Yes Bheemi.
I dont want this to be an an implied guarantee, but that is the plan for now. Things can change depending on whose bill is debated on Senate floor - SJC or Frist's S. 2454.
Jay.
I dont want this to be an an implied guarantee, but that is the plan for now. Things can change depending on whose bill is debated on Senate floor - SJC or Frist's S. 2454.
Jay.
hairstyles color #6 - Chestnut Brown
sanju
08-02 11:46 PM
Thanks for the information. VB dates were stuck around April 2001 date because a large number of applications were filed to meet the deadline for
245i.
The dates were �current� until 2005 because of the availability of unused visa numbers that were recaptured by AC-21 bill - passed in 2000-2001. So countries with larger applicant pool got (a lot) more than the otherwise allowed ~3000 green cards in each category. Since 2005, there are no recaptured visa numbers are available, so applicants in a category from any specific country cannot get more than ~ 3000 green cards. Pls. see the distribution of green card numbers in 2006 in his document:
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableV-Part2.pdf
Most people on the forum are busy tracking their 485 receipt, of encashment of bank checks, IO comments etc. Most people will learn that all this is tracking is of no use other than helping everybody to have higher BP. If more green card numbers are not allocated, the wait time for applicants with priority date 2006 could possibly be more than a decade. The past trends were driven by positive events like visa recapture etc. So these trends are not reflective of what to expect in the future. But looking at 2006 numbers, one thing is for sure, the wait times could be a many more that what we would expect.
There is only thing that can prevent wait times of more than 10-15 years - change in the law to increase the number of EB GCs.
245i.
The dates were �current� until 2005 because of the availability of unused visa numbers that were recaptured by AC-21 bill - passed in 2000-2001. So countries with larger applicant pool got (a lot) more than the otherwise allowed ~3000 green cards in each category. Since 2005, there are no recaptured visa numbers are available, so applicants in a category from any specific country cannot get more than ~ 3000 green cards. Pls. see the distribution of green card numbers in 2006 in his document:
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableV-Part2.pdf
Most people on the forum are busy tracking their 485 receipt, of encashment of bank checks, IO comments etc. Most people will learn that all this is tracking is of no use other than helping everybody to have higher BP. If more green card numbers are not allocated, the wait time for applicants with priority date 2006 could possibly be more than a decade. The past trends were driven by positive events like visa recapture etc. So these trends are not reflective of what to expect in the future. But looking at 2006 numbers, one thing is for sure, the wait times could be a many more that what we would expect.
There is only thing that can prevent wait times of more than 10-15 years - change in the law to increase the number of EB GCs.
deecha
07-16 01:25 PM
Hello,
I have a general question on EB# to EB2 porting and was hoping if I could get any advice here. I have a labor filed under EB3 in 2005. I got my EAD in 2007 (thanks to the floodgates that opened in July). Now I am planning to move to a different employer in a much better role. The future employer is a startup, and is a little hesitant on transferring H1B, but will file for my labor in EB2 category and will work on porting my priority date.
That means, I will have to drop my H1 (valid through 2012) and will be on EAD. Is it possible to file for EB2 and port from EB3 later on, if H1 visa is dropped and I am in solely on EAD?
Thanks for going through my post.
This is a huge gray area and I find myself in a similar predicament. According to AC21 if you change jobs, you must be in the same or similar occupation. Now, if you're going to file EB2, then obviously the job has different requirements. If you can somehow prove that the new job is "similar" to the old position, yet it requires some kind of advancement to justify EB2, you can do what you're attempting to do. Maybe software engineer --> technical architect is justified under AC21, however technical architect needs (say) 7 years of experience + Bachelors in CS. I believe in such a situation, you should be ok. However I don't think you can count any experience in your new company towards the EB2 sponsored in your new company.
In any case, I am not a lawywer. It's best to consult an experienced attorney and get this sorted out.
One more thing, I would highly appreciate it if you could post your findings in this thread/forum.
I have a general question on EB# to EB2 porting and was hoping if I could get any advice here. I have a labor filed under EB3 in 2005. I got my EAD in 2007 (thanks to the floodgates that opened in July). Now I am planning to move to a different employer in a much better role. The future employer is a startup, and is a little hesitant on transferring H1B, but will file for my labor in EB2 category and will work on porting my priority date.
That means, I will have to drop my H1 (valid through 2012) and will be on EAD. Is it possible to file for EB2 and port from EB3 later on, if H1 visa is dropped and I am in solely on EAD?
Thanks for going through my post.
This is a huge gray area and I find myself in a similar predicament. According to AC21 if you change jobs, you must be in the same or similar occupation. Now, if you're going to file EB2, then obviously the job has different requirements. If you can somehow prove that the new job is "similar" to the old position, yet it requires some kind of advancement to justify EB2, you can do what you're attempting to do. Maybe software engineer --> technical architect is justified under AC21, however technical architect needs (say) 7 years of experience + Bachelors in CS. I believe in such a situation, you should be ok. However I don't think you can count any experience in your new company towards the EB2 sponsored in your new company.
In any case, I am not a lawywer. It's best to consult an experienced attorney and get this sorted out.
One more thing, I would highly appreciate it if you could post your findings in this thread/forum.
Humhongekamyab
08-20 03:17 PM
I am glad they have started enforcing this. This will let them work on the cases rather than answer the calls.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기