qasleuth
11-20 10:59 PM
I already had conversation with american people ( not any desi's)
ummm...not sure what that means....are you saying 'american' people can give you better advice on this matter "of leaving the house because you are moving for a different job" than 'desis'.
U tell me how wise it is to give a loan to a person without a down payment..The reason i said that other people are stupid is because.. i took an ARM loan of 5 years,, where i knew that i am not going to live in the house for more than 3 years and will later sell it..and there are people who knew that they are going to stay in the same house for more than their ARM period.. but didnt realize that they wont be able to make payment once the rate is re-adjusted.. i am calling those people's decision as stupid..
about me making a bad decision about buying a house.. well not 2 years ago..
i can sell the house for a loss of may be 20,000.. but why should i pay that money from my pocket.. i can keep that in my savings account and use it in my bad time..
Are you sure you have a job, a house and have the capacity to get to work without needing assistance ?
Your simplistic explanation about ARMs Vs length of ownership of the house, decision to 'leave the house' because of a job (whatever that means, did you lose your job or did you find a better job or what ?) is just incredible.
How much down payment did you make ? Won't you lose that amount?
Here is a conversation I had with a co-worker recently:
Co-worker took a 3/1 ARM and bought a house which is beyond her means. Now the rate adjusted to a crazy amount and she is finding it hard to pay her mortgage. She blames everybody from her broker to banker to Obama to Paulson to foreign workers.
Rationalizing to suit your needs is a fallacy. As a grown up you have to own up to the decisions you make. Running away from your financial commitments giving simplistic rationalizations will get you into deeper trouble.
Anyways, my own interest in this discussion is what sledge_hammer nailed, people like him/her and I pay for your greed.
ummm...not sure what that means....are you saying 'american' people can give you better advice on this matter "of leaving the house because you are moving for a different job" than 'desis'.
U tell me how wise it is to give a loan to a person without a down payment..The reason i said that other people are stupid is because.. i took an ARM loan of 5 years,, where i knew that i am not going to live in the house for more than 3 years and will later sell it..and there are people who knew that they are going to stay in the same house for more than their ARM period.. but didnt realize that they wont be able to make payment once the rate is re-adjusted.. i am calling those people's decision as stupid..
about me making a bad decision about buying a house.. well not 2 years ago..
i can sell the house for a loss of may be 20,000.. but why should i pay that money from my pocket.. i can keep that in my savings account and use it in my bad time..
Are you sure you have a job, a house and have the capacity to get to work without needing assistance ?
Your simplistic explanation about ARMs Vs length of ownership of the house, decision to 'leave the house' because of a job (whatever that means, did you lose your job or did you find a better job or what ?) is just incredible.
How much down payment did you make ? Won't you lose that amount?
Here is a conversation I had with a co-worker recently:
Co-worker took a 3/1 ARM and bought a house which is beyond her means. Now the rate adjusted to a crazy amount and she is finding it hard to pay her mortgage. She blames everybody from her broker to banker to Obama to Paulson to foreign workers.
Rationalizing to suit your needs is a fallacy. As a grown up you have to own up to the decisions you make. Running away from your financial commitments giving simplistic rationalizations will get you into deeper trouble.
Anyways, my own interest in this discussion is what sledge_hammer nailed, people like him/her and I pay for your greed.
wallpaper cameron diaz bad teacher
mmanurker
11-25 03:21 PM
Interesting Example of how the bubble bursts!
Here's a very interesting anecdote that describes how an 'asset bubble' builds up and what are its consequences.
Read it even if it confuses you a bit:confused:...things will be clear as you reach the end....
ANECDOTE -
Once there was a little island country. The land of this country was the tiny island itself. The total money in circulation was 2 dollar as there were only two pieces of 1 dollar coins circulating around.
1) There were 3 citizens living on this island country. A owned the land. B and C each owned 1 dollar.
2) B decided to purchase the land from A for 1 dollar. So, A and C now each own 1 dollar while B owned a piece of land that is worth 1 dollar.
The net asset of the country = 3 dollar.
3) C thought that since there is only one piece of land in the country and land is non produce able asset, its value must definitely go up. So, he borrowed 1 dollar from A and together with his own 1 dollar, he bought the land from B for 2 dollar.
A has a loan to C of 1 dollar, so his net asset is 1 dollar.
B sold his land and got 2 dollar, so his net asset is 2 dollar.
C owned the piece of land worth 2 dollar but with his 1 dollar debt to A, his net asset is 1 dollar.
The net asset of the country = 4 dollar.
4) A saw that the land he once owned has risen in value. He regretted selling it. Luckily, he has a 1 dollar loan to C. He then borrowed 2 dollar from B and acquired the land back from C for 3 dollar. The payment is by 2 dollar cash (which he borrowed) and cancellation of the 1 dollar loan to C. As a result, A now owned a piece of land that is worth 3 dollar. But since he owed B 2 dollar, his net asset is 1 dollar.
B loaned 2 dollar to A. So his net asset is 2 dollar.
C now has the 2 coins. His net asset is also 2 dollar.
The net asset of the country = 5 dollar. A bubble is building up.
(5) B saw that the value of land kept rising. He also wanted to own the land. So he bought the land from A for 4 dollar. The payment is by borrowing 2 dollar from C and cancellation of his 2 dollar loan to A. As a result, A has got his debt cleared and he got the 2 coins.. His net asset is 2 dollar.
B owned a piece of land that is worth 4 dollar but since he has a debt of 2 dollar with C, his net Asset is 2 dollar.
C loaned 2 dollar to B, so his net asset is 2 dollar.
The net asset of the country = 6 dollar. Even though, the country has only one piece of land and 2 Dollar in circulation.
(6) Everybody has made money and everybody felt happy and prosperous.
(7) One day an evil wind blowed. An evil thought came to C's mind. 'Hey, what if the land price stop going up, how could B repay my loan. There is only 2 dollar in circulation, I think after all the land that B owns is worth at most 1 dollar only.'
A also thought the same.
(8) Nobody wanted to buy land anymore. In the end, A owns the 2 dollar coins, his net asset is 2 dollar. B owed C 2 dollar and the land he owned which he thought worth 4 dollar is now 1 dollar. His net asset become -1
dollar.
C has a loan of 2 dollar to B. But it is a bad debt. Although his net asset is still 2 dollar, his Heart is palpitating. The net asset of the country = 3 dollar again.
Who has stolen the 3 dollar from the country ? Of course, before the bubble burst B thought his land worth 4 dollar. Actually, right before the collapse, the net asset of the country was 6 dollar in paper. his net asset is still 2 dollar, his heart is palpitating.
The net asset of the country = 3 dollar again.
(9) B had no choice but to declare bankruptcy. C as to relinquish his 2 dollar bad debt to B but in return he acquired the land which is worth 1 dollar now.
A owns the 2 coins, his net asset is 2 dollar. B is bankrupt, his net asset is 0 dollar. ( B lost everything ) C got no choice but end up with a land worth only 1 dollar (C lost one dollar) The net asset of the country = 3 dollar.
************ ****End of the story******* ********* ********* **
There is however a redistribution of wealth.
A is the winner, B is the loser, C is lucky that he is spared.
A few points worth noting -
(1) When a bubble is building up, the debt of individual in a country to one another is also building up.
(2) This story of the island is a close system whereby there is no other country and hence no foreign debt. The worth of the asset can only be calculated using the island's own currency. Hence, there is no net loss.
(3) An over damped system is assumed when the bubble burst, meaning the land's value did not go down to below 1 dollar.
(4) When the bubble burst, the fellow with cash is the winner. The fellows having the land or extending loan to others are the loser. The asset could shrink or in worst case, they go bankrupt.
(5) If there is another citizen D either holding a dollar or another piece of land but refrain to take part in the game. At the end of the day, he will neither win nor lose. But he will see the value of his money or land go up and down like a see saw.
(6) When the bubble was in the growing phase, everybody made money.
(7) If you are smart and know that you are living in a growing bubble, it is worthwhile to borrow money (like A ) and take part in the game. But you must know when you should change everything back to cash.
(8) Instead of land, the above applies to stocks as well.
(9) The actual worth of land or stocks depend largely on supply and demand
Here's a very interesting anecdote that describes how an 'asset bubble' builds up and what are its consequences.
Read it even if it confuses you a bit:confused:...things will be clear as you reach the end....
ANECDOTE -
Once there was a little island country. The land of this country was the tiny island itself. The total money in circulation was 2 dollar as there were only two pieces of 1 dollar coins circulating around.
1) There were 3 citizens living on this island country. A owned the land. B and C each owned 1 dollar.
2) B decided to purchase the land from A for 1 dollar. So, A and C now each own 1 dollar while B owned a piece of land that is worth 1 dollar.
The net asset of the country = 3 dollar.
3) C thought that since there is only one piece of land in the country and land is non produce able asset, its value must definitely go up. So, he borrowed 1 dollar from A and together with his own 1 dollar, he bought the land from B for 2 dollar.
A has a loan to C of 1 dollar, so his net asset is 1 dollar.
B sold his land and got 2 dollar, so his net asset is 2 dollar.
C owned the piece of land worth 2 dollar but with his 1 dollar debt to A, his net asset is 1 dollar.
The net asset of the country = 4 dollar.
4) A saw that the land he once owned has risen in value. He regretted selling it. Luckily, he has a 1 dollar loan to C. He then borrowed 2 dollar from B and acquired the land back from C for 3 dollar. The payment is by 2 dollar cash (which he borrowed) and cancellation of the 1 dollar loan to C. As a result, A now owned a piece of land that is worth 3 dollar. But since he owed B 2 dollar, his net asset is 1 dollar.
B loaned 2 dollar to A. So his net asset is 2 dollar.
C now has the 2 coins. His net asset is also 2 dollar.
The net asset of the country = 5 dollar. A bubble is building up.
(5) B saw that the value of land kept rising. He also wanted to own the land. So he bought the land from A for 4 dollar. The payment is by borrowing 2 dollar from C and cancellation of his 2 dollar loan to A. As a result, A has got his debt cleared and he got the 2 coins.. His net asset is 2 dollar.
B owned a piece of land that is worth 4 dollar but since he has a debt of 2 dollar with C, his net Asset is 2 dollar.
C loaned 2 dollar to B, so his net asset is 2 dollar.
The net asset of the country = 6 dollar. Even though, the country has only one piece of land and 2 Dollar in circulation.
(6) Everybody has made money and everybody felt happy and prosperous.
(7) One day an evil wind blowed. An evil thought came to C's mind. 'Hey, what if the land price stop going up, how could B repay my loan. There is only 2 dollar in circulation, I think after all the land that B owns is worth at most 1 dollar only.'
A also thought the same.
(8) Nobody wanted to buy land anymore. In the end, A owns the 2 dollar coins, his net asset is 2 dollar. B owed C 2 dollar and the land he owned which he thought worth 4 dollar is now 1 dollar. His net asset become -1
dollar.
C has a loan of 2 dollar to B. But it is a bad debt. Although his net asset is still 2 dollar, his Heart is palpitating. The net asset of the country = 3 dollar again.
Who has stolen the 3 dollar from the country ? Of course, before the bubble burst B thought his land worth 4 dollar. Actually, right before the collapse, the net asset of the country was 6 dollar in paper. his net asset is still 2 dollar, his heart is palpitating.
The net asset of the country = 3 dollar again.
(9) B had no choice but to declare bankruptcy. C as to relinquish his 2 dollar bad debt to B but in return he acquired the land which is worth 1 dollar now.
A owns the 2 coins, his net asset is 2 dollar. B is bankrupt, his net asset is 0 dollar. ( B lost everything ) C got no choice but end up with a land worth only 1 dollar (C lost one dollar) The net asset of the country = 3 dollar.
************ ****End of the story******* ********* ********* **
There is however a redistribution of wealth.
A is the winner, B is the loser, C is lucky that he is spared.
A few points worth noting -
(1) When a bubble is building up, the debt of individual in a country to one another is also building up.
(2) This story of the island is a close system whereby there is no other country and hence no foreign debt. The worth of the asset can only be calculated using the island's own currency. Hence, there is no net loss.
(3) An over damped system is assumed when the bubble burst, meaning the land's value did not go down to below 1 dollar.
(4) When the bubble burst, the fellow with cash is the winner. The fellows having the land or extending loan to others are the loser. The asset could shrink or in worst case, they go bankrupt.
(5) If there is another citizen D either holding a dollar or another piece of land but refrain to take part in the game. At the end of the day, he will neither win nor lose. But he will see the value of his money or land go up and down like a see saw.
(6) When the bubble was in the growing phase, everybody made money.
(7) If you are smart and know that you are living in a growing bubble, it is worthwhile to borrow money (like A ) and take part in the game. But you must know when you should change everything back to cash.
(8) Instead of land, the above applies to stocks as well.
(9) The actual worth of land or stocks depend largely on supply and demand
Macaca
02-21 10:50 AM
Broken Borders and Dover Sole: My Lunch With Lou Dobbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/opinion/21thu4.html?ref=opinion) By LAWRENCE DOWNES | NYT, Feb 21
So I was having lunch at the Four Seasons with Lou Dobbs the other day, locked in disagreement over who cared more about working people, him or me.
Him: CNN host, biggest and loudest gun in the battle for tougher immigration policies, leader of a nightly crusade to expose the misdeeds of those he views as elitist fools and scoundrels.
Me: editorial writer whose views on immigration qualify, to Mr. Dobbs and many others on his side of the debate, as elitist, foolish and scoundrelly.
Meeting at the Four Seasons was his idea, to continue a long, civil and inconclusive phone conversation about immigration. I got there early and waited at Mr. Dobbs�s banquette. I looked around the hushed room, full of dark suits and a wintry glow. Mr. Dobbs appeared and settled in, his drink, cranberry juice and seltzer, materializing at his right elbow.
In the spirit of the occasion, I ordered strictly within our borders: lobster bisque, filet of bison and New York tap water. He had the Dover sole.
Among people whose immigration views I admire, Mr. Dobbs has a reputation as a hopeless blowhard. I did not dwell on that at lunch. I was his guest, and I had seen what happens if you try to skewer him with insult or accusation. Mr. Dobbs is unencumbered by self-doubt. The granite fortress of his certitude is smooth and featureless, and whatever boulders you hurl at it will end up on your head. Besides, I was looking for something better than an argument. I wanted to convert him.
An honest person must concede a lot when arguing immigration with Mr. Dobbs: Yes, the borders and ports are insecure, and poor countries like Mexico have done too little to solve their economic and migration problems. Yes, illegal immigration hurts some Americans, globalization causes many global problems and big corporations love to stick it to the little guy.
My point to Mr. Dobbs was that the little-little guy � the �illegal alien� crossing our �broken borders� � was the wrong target. His overriding emphasis on solving globalization�s many ills by urgently sealing the borders strikes me as populism gone astray.
First, it�s ineffective, because the country will never be ziplocked as tightly as he wants it to be. The price of trying is too high, and it ignores the millions who enter the country legally but overstay. Most shamefully, it does nothing to resolve the fates of the 12 million undocumented already here.
Second, the obsession with enforcement dovetails with the agendas of some nasty people: the nativists for whom immigration is a simple case of brown and white, of preserving �American� culture by keeping Latinos out.
Third, it does too little to attack the evil corporate elites that are Mr. Dobbs�s sworn enemy. What makes illegal immigrants so delectable to big, bad business is their illegality � their willingness to work cheap and under the table. So why not legalize and tax them? Assimilate the good guys, as this country has always done, and save law enforcement for the bad ones.
The idea is to confront abusive corporate power with worker power. If day laborers end up in our suburbs, where the money and jobs are, then give them safe places to gather and help them work together to keep from driving wages and working conditions down. If companies take advantage of workers, empower the workers to fight back: as union members, legal residents, citizens.
But that�s �amnesty,� a Dobbsian expletive. It�s the opposite of the crackdowns endorsed by him and the hard-liners he praises, like the Minutemen.
Mr. Dobbs listened graciously and budged not. He said he respected immigrants, even illegal ones, who he felt had gotten an unfair shake from their governments. He reminded me of his fondness for Cesar Chavez.
Then he repeated his immigration credo. It went like this: the 1986 immigration law was an amnesty promoted by corporate interests waging war on the middle class. Thus the 2006 and 2007 reforms were also amnesty, pushed by the same self-serving plutocrats. So nothing they want is worth doing � at least not until the border is sealed.
That could be a long time. While we wait, I am going to keep trying to convince Mr. Dobbs that a comprehensive solution � enforcement plus assimilation � is the best expression of the populism he espouses.
Mr. Dobbs admits that mass deportation would never work, although if you press him on what to do about the 12 million, he has no answer. He wants to hold that question �in abeyance� until the border is sealed. I find that oddly passive for someone so convinced of the dangers from the aliens in our midst.
I told him that, and he smiled. The lunch was over. I didn�t wrestle over the check because there was no check, just a goodbye from the staff. I got my coat and walked with Mr. Dobbs to his car. We shook hands and I thanked him for the discussion. He made me promise to continue it. I assured him I would.
So I was having lunch at the Four Seasons with Lou Dobbs the other day, locked in disagreement over who cared more about working people, him or me.
Him: CNN host, biggest and loudest gun in the battle for tougher immigration policies, leader of a nightly crusade to expose the misdeeds of those he views as elitist fools and scoundrels.
Me: editorial writer whose views on immigration qualify, to Mr. Dobbs and many others on his side of the debate, as elitist, foolish and scoundrelly.
Meeting at the Four Seasons was his idea, to continue a long, civil and inconclusive phone conversation about immigration. I got there early and waited at Mr. Dobbs�s banquette. I looked around the hushed room, full of dark suits and a wintry glow. Mr. Dobbs appeared and settled in, his drink, cranberry juice and seltzer, materializing at his right elbow.
In the spirit of the occasion, I ordered strictly within our borders: lobster bisque, filet of bison and New York tap water. He had the Dover sole.
Among people whose immigration views I admire, Mr. Dobbs has a reputation as a hopeless blowhard. I did not dwell on that at lunch. I was his guest, and I had seen what happens if you try to skewer him with insult or accusation. Mr. Dobbs is unencumbered by self-doubt. The granite fortress of his certitude is smooth and featureless, and whatever boulders you hurl at it will end up on your head. Besides, I was looking for something better than an argument. I wanted to convert him.
An honest person must concede a lot when arguing immigration with Mr. Dobbs: Yes, the borders and ports are insecure, and poor countries like Mexico have done too little to solve their economic and migration problems. Yes, illegal immigration hurts some Americans, globalization causes many global problems and big corporations love to stick it to the little guy.
My point to Mr. Dobbs was that the little-little guy � the �illegal alien� crossing our �broken borders� � was the wrong target. His overriding emphasis on solving globalization�s many ills by urgently sealing the borders strikes me as populism gone astray.
First, it�s ineffective, because the country will never be ziplocked as tightly as he wants it to be. The price of trying is too high, and it ignores the millions who enter the country legally but overstay. Most shamefully, it does nothing to resolve the fates of the 12 million undocumented already here.
Second, the obsession with enforcement dovetails with the agendas of some nasty people: the nativists for whom immigration is a simple case of brown and white, of preserving �American� culture by keeping Latinos out.
Third, it does too little to attack the evil corporate elites that are Mr. Dobbs�s sworn enemy. What makes illegal immigrants so delectable to big, bad business is their illegality � their willingness to work cheap and under the table. So why not legalize and tax them? Assimilate the good guys, as this country has always done, and save law enforcement for the bad ones.
The idea is to confront abusive corporate power with worker power. If day laborers end up in our suburbs, where the money and jobs are, then give them safe places to gather and help them work together to keep from driving wages and working conditions down. If companies take advantage of workers, empower the workers to fight back: as union members, legal residents, citizens.
But that�s �amnesty,� a Dobbsian expletive. It�s the opposite of the crackdowns endorsed by him and the hard-liners he praises, like the Minutemen.
Mr. Dobbs listened graciously and budged not. He said he respected immigrants, even illegal ones, who he felt had gotten an unfair shake from their governments. He reminded me of his fondness for Cesar Chavez.
Then he repeated his immigration credo. It went like this: the 1986 immigration law was an amnesty promoted by corporate interests waging war on the middle class. Thus the 2006 and 2007 reforms were also amnesty, pushed by the same self-serving plutocrats. So nothing they want is worth doing � at least not until the border is sealed.
That could be a long time. While we wait, I am going to keep trying to convince Mr. Dobbs that a comprehensive solution � enforcement plus assimilation � is the best expression of the populism he espouses.
Mr. Dobbs admits that mass deportation would never work, although if you press him on what to do about the 12 million, he has no answer. He wants to hold that question �in abeyance� until the border is sealed. I find that oddly passive for someone so convinced of the dangers from the aliens in our midst.
I told him that, and he smiled. The lunch was over. I didn�t wrestle over the check because there was no check, just a goodbye from the staff. I got my coat and walked with Mr. Dobbs to his car. We shook hands and I thanked him for the discussion. He made me promise to continue it. I assured him I would.
2011 2011 Cameron Diaz: Bad Teacher
rsharma
06-13 09:40 PM
I never said raising this issue is illegal. BTW I was not replying to "l1fraud". My comment was directed at "dilipcr" who is of the opinion that Grassley's bill is good and IV core and the forum should support it so that he can have a secure job.
BTW is l1fraud or others raising this issue out of love for law ? no way. That was my point.
The L1 visas done by the outsourcing companies are the main reason for the employment problem. These companies like TCS, Wipro etc.. bring people in L1A, L1B blamket visas to do the common development/Business Analysis/Project Management job in the client site.
There is no quota for L1 Visas. They can bring any # of people they want. Per law the L1A s should be of senior managerial position with at least 4 subordinates working under them in US and L1B should be of specific skill very important for the project and not available in US. But the most of the L1As from these companies are just programmers/BAsor small PMs. They are directly controlled by their client manager.
The main intent of these our sourcing companies is to send the employees on L1 and the employees are constantly told to somehow transfer the project to offshore.
The L1 frauds should defenitely be reported. I totally support this initiative to report the L1 frauds committed by these outrsourcing companies.
BTW is l1fraud or others raising this issue out of love for law ? no way. That was my point.
The L1 visas done by the outsourcing companies are the main reason for the employment problem. These companies like TCS, Wipro etc.. bring people in L1A, L1B blamket visas to do the common development/Business Analysis/Project Management job in the client site.
There is no quota for L1 Visas. They can bring any # of people they want. Per law the L1A s should be of senior managerial position with at least 4 subordinates working under them in US and L1B should be of specific skill very important for the project and not available in US. But the most of the L1As from these companies are just programmers/BAsor small PMs. They are directly controlled by their client manager.
The main intent of these our sourcing companies is to send the employees on L1 and the employees are constantly told to somehow transfer the project to offshore.
The L1 frauds should defenitely be reported. I totally support this initiative to report the L1 frauds committed by these outrsourcing companies.
more...
brshankar
08-07 03:54 PM
I was double minded to do porting or not. Now I am considering it very seriously. Got a green signal from my current EMPLOYER to go ahead for EB2.
Good Luck dude. You should definitely go for it.
Good Luck dude. You should definitely go for it.
pittdude
03-16 09:06 PM
Let all the members who are here in USA for more than 9 years without a green card unite and make this as an ACTION ITEM for IV Core to consider this. Others who like this idea are most welcome to support this.
We all need to unite to get this going...
We all need to unite to get this going...
more...
vikki76
10-02 04:11 PM
Some of us with 2004 are still waiting.
2010 Cameron Diaz,#39;Bad Teacher#39;
SamTheChapu
08-19 06:09 PM
Congrats!!!! Can you please tell the SR process? Do we have to tell the reason why we want SR on the case? If yes, what was your reason to open SR? Thanks!
You call the 1 800 number
Call 1 800 375 5283 and choose option 1 for English
* choose option 2 for checking case status
* Enter receipt number ........., select 1 to confirm the LIN number is correct
* It reads out the information which you can already see online
* It gives me few options to select now:- (To repeat press 1, to check another case press 2, to report a problem with this case press 3,
Press option 3 (problem with case) and then listen carefully to choose "case is outside processing time" and that should lead you to the representative
note down representative name and his id.
Tell him your information (A number, name, address, priority date etc when he asks for it) and tell him you are current and the case is outside processing time (it's too old case as the information online says they are processing 2009/2010 I 485 cases) and ask him the status of the case.
Ask him that you want to know about if the name check is completed, FBI background clearance passed etc and where is your case right now (assigned to any IO?)
This should trigger him to open an SR. Note down SR number.
You call the 1 800 number
Call 1 800 375 5283 and choose option 1 for English
* choose option 2 for checking case status
* Enter receipt number ........., select 1 to confirm the LIN number is correct
* It reads out the information which you can already see online
* It gives me few options to select now:- (To repeat press 1, to check another case press 2, to report a problem with this case press 3,
Press option 3 (problem with case) and then listen carefully to choose "case is outside processing time" and that should lead you to the representative
note down representative name and his id.
Tell him your information (A number, name, address, priority date etc when he asks for it) and tell him you are current and the case is outside processing time (it's too old case as the information online says they are processing 2009/2010 I 485 cases) and ask him the status of the case.
Ask him that you want to know about if the name check is completed, FBI background clearance passed etc and where is your case right now (assigned to any IO?)
This should trigger him to open an SR. Note down SR number.
more...
pappu
09-16 08:24 AM
Received 'card production (green card)' approval e-mails for both me and my wife this morning.
IV leaders and IV Texas State Chapter can still count on my voluntary involvement. I love walking through the walkways of the Congress House and the Senate, especially the tram that connects the House and the Senate via the tunnel. ;)
Congrats
IV leaders and IV Texas State Chapter can still count on my voluntary involvement. I love walking through the walkways of the Congress House and the Senate, especially the tram that connects the House and the Senate via the tunnel. ;)
Congrats
hair girlfriend cameron diaz bad teacher car cameron diaz bad teacher shoes.
mrsr
06-19 06:54 PM
it asks last five year employment history , i have not worked in USA for the past 3 year but i have worked abroad before these 3 years.. should i write it in the column or i should write NONE as i have not worked here in USA .... i am not the primary applicant ... my husband is primary applicant
more...
reddymjm
08-07 03:51 PM
Lets say some miracle happens and EB3 becomes current and EB2 backlogged,
all these calling Us and Lawsuit guys will be the first one to port their PD.
all these calling Us and Lawsuit guys will be the first one to port their PD.
hot Cameron Diaz Sizzles In Maxim
fatjoe
10-05 11:00 PM
@ fatjoe
We should also check if we have a case to sue USCIS. Last year, they said they were going by receipt/notice date and not PDs. What are they going by this year? Hundreds of people with receipt/notice/PD later than mine have been approved. My PD is June 2004.
Yes, lets send a letter collectively to Napolitino.
Hi Cali: I think we should concentrate on getting our case approved first in a polite manner. Also, I think that we can form a nice letter, but send it separately, as our personal details are different.
We should also check if we have a case to sue USCIS. Last year, they said they were going by receipt/notice date and not PDs. What are they going by this year? Hundreds of people with receipt/notice/PD later than mine have been approved. My PD is June 2004.
Yes, lets send a letter collectively to Napolitino.
Hi Cali: I think we should concentrate on getting our case approved first in a polite manner. Also, I think that we can form a nice letter, but send it separately, as our personal details are different.
more...
house Cameron Diaz Enjoyed Swearing
aristotle
06-29 06:55 PM
Could it be that the AILA is talking about the 4th category and AILF's Legal Action Center is seeking plaintiffs - mainly 4th category that got their applications rejected?
Then the title would say "June" visa availability. And it was for EB3 other category.
Then the title would say "June" visa availability. And it was for EB3 other category.
tattoo cameron diaz plays the titular
veeru123
02-22 03:42 PM
Called the DOS. Told them I need to travel to my home country and asked them if they can verify if my information is in PIMS. She asked if the H1-B is an extension case which it is. She said the extension cases are taking a bit longer than the new ones. That is quite surprising. Finally she looked in the database or whatever and said they do not have my extension information yet. All they have is the information from the expired petition. No timelines just asked me to call back in a week.:rolleyes:
I need to know if anyone had any luck if their lawyers pursued this matter with the DOS.
I need to know if anyone had any luck if their lawyers pursued this matter with the DOS.
more...
pictures a-cameron-diaz-ad-teacher
vkrishn
08-20 12:28 AM
The pain of waiting for 9-yrs is nothing compared to the wait now (after dates got current)...Refreshing my yahoo mail on iPhone atleast twice per hour, Clicking on Safari where the last visited page is that of case status online (Click the status btn frequently) --- Life is difficult :(
Like an ad says: "Stay thirsty my friend", I hope I dont have to stay thirsty "FOREVER".
God save us from this misery just like u've been saving a few others!!!
I hear you. Goodluck to us!
Like an ad says: "Stay thirsty my friend", I hope I dont have to stay thirsty "FOREVER".
God save us from this misery just like u've been saving a few others!!!
I hear you. Goodluck to us!
dresses Cameron Diaz at Bad Teacher
tapukakababa
01-10 01:12 PM
^^^
more...
makeup cameron diaz bad teacher.
coopheal
08-08 09:21 AM
I am the later...
This is my last post in this regards.
Solution of frustration is not destructive thinking which you are doing. Grow up�.
May be you might have supported previous IV campaigns. I urge you to keep supporting them instead of going anything crazy like what you are planning.
Finally if you have reasons to believe some firms are gaming the system then report them. That is American way of doing things.
This is my last post in this regards.
Solution of frustration is not destructive thinking which you are doing. Grow up�.
May be you might have supported previous IV campaigns. I urge you to keep supporting them instead of going anything crazy like what you are planning.
Finally if you have reasons to believe some firms are gaming the system then report them. That is American way of doing things.
girlfriend Bad Teacher is comedy centered
snathan
04-01 03:51 PM
Wait a minute, how was this India EB2 case even allowed to file I-485 when that PD has never been current? The lawyer alleges that it has been pending for several years.
Does this "fee bill" have nothing to do with 485 filing? Is it just plain wrong or am I missing something obvious here?
Perhaps he meant September 2006.
This is not I-485 and its a CP case...
Does this "fee bill" have nothing to do with 485 filing? Is it just plain wrong or am I missing something obvious here?
Perhaps he meant September 2006.
This is not I-485 and its a CP case...
hairstyles cameron diaz bad teacher wallpaper. 2011 Cameron Diaz is a Bad
intbuz
08-19 02:37 PM
Yes. Indeed you are approved..Congrats.
thanks Anil
thanks Anil
WaldenPond
02-18 09:38 PM
Congress has begun a 10-day recess. The House and Senate are scheduled to return the week of February 27. When they return, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up comprehensive immigration reform, probably beginning March 2. On March 27 this bill will be brought to the floor of the Senate.
www.immigration-law.com also posted information about Comprehensive bill suggesting that on 02/16/2006, the Executive Business Meeting of the Senate Judiciary marked up the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. We have not yet found the mark up document. If anybody is able to find this document, please post let everybody know.
There are two pieces of Innovation/Competitiveness bills that are being considered:
1.) Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Acts (PACE)
This act is based on Augustine report. This act is sponsored by Domenici-Bingaman-Alexander-Mikulski. There are 60 Senators who have endorsed this act. This act is being supported by Craig Barrett and other hi-tech industry leaders. The link below provides the summary. Section 314 of the education part of this act contains some of the provisions for Employment based immigration.
http://www.asertti.org/news/documents/PACE_Summary.pdf
2.) National Innovation Act (NIA) of 2005
This act is based on Report of Council of Competitiveness (Immivationamerica.org/Compete.org report of 2005). This act is sponsored by Senator Lieberman (CT) and Senator John Ensign (NV). At this time this act has support of 25 Senators. This act is also being supported by Craig Barrett who is co-chair for the academy that is involved with NIA. There are other executives of high profile companies who are supporting this initiative. The link below provides the summary. Could not find much on employment based immigration other than the fact that this act is asking for $1 Million to conduct a study to find out the right numbers of legal plus employment based immigration. So this looks like a long shot.
http://www.compete.org/pdf/National_Innovation_Act%20-%20Section_by_Section.pdf
Both Innovation/Competitiveness acts are not competing with each other but rather complementing each other. The people and substance involved in both the acts are similar. Just that they provide slightly different solution to the situation where PACE provides for additional funding and slightly more aggressive than NIA. Both the bills have very broad & bi-partisan support in Senate. However, it is getting slightly tougher to get support from the House for these bills.
www.immigration-law.com also posted information about Comprehensive bill suggesting that on 02/16/2006, the Executive Business Meeting of the Senate Judiciary marked up the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. We have not yet found the mark up document. If anybody is able to find this document, please post let everybody know.
There are two pieces of Innovation/Competitiveness bills that are being considered:
1.) Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Acts (PACE)
This act is based on Augustine report. This act is sponsored by Domenici-Bingaman-Alexander-Mikulski. There are 60 Senators who have endorsed this act. This act is being supported by Craig Barrett and other hi-tech industry leaders. The link below provides the summary. Section 314 of the education part of this act contains some of the provisions for Employment based immigration.
http://www.asertti.org/news/documents/PACE_Summary.pdf
2.) National Innovation Act (NIA) of 2005
This act is based on Report of Council of Competitiveness (Immivationamerica.org/Compete.org report of 2005). This act is sponsored by Senator Lieberman (CT) and Senator John Ensign (NV). At this time this act has support of 25 Senators. This act is also being supported by Craig Barrett who is co-chair for the academy that is involved with NIA. There are other executives of high profile companies who are supporting this initiative. The link below provides the summary. Could not find much on employment based immigration other than the fact that this act is asking for $1 Million to conduct a study to find out the right numbers of legal plus employment based immigration. So this looks like a long shot.
http://www.compete.org/pdf/National_Innovation_Act%20-%20Section_by_Section.pdf
Both Innovation/Competitiveness acts are not competing with each other but rather complementing each other. The people and substance involved in both the acts are similar. Just that they provide slightly different solution to the situation where PACE provides for additional funding and slightly more aggressive than NIA. Both the bills have very broad & bi-partisan support in Senate. However, it is getting slightly tougher to get support from the House for these bills.
logiclife
06-15 02:32 PM
Hi Friends,
I am really sick and tired of my attorney. He is making money out of immigrants but he does not like immigrants based on our dicussion.
I think we are very well educated and can easily take care of 485 filing.
My attorney will charge me at least $3000 for it although I got his referral from AILA. On top of that he delays filing my PERM and 140 and having serious attitude problem.
I can easily take care of 485 filing by myself.
My only and great concern is- Is my attorney can screw up my GC processing if I fire him and file 485 on my own?
Your Thoughts..
Thanks!
I doubt that the lawyer would purposely hurt a former client. Its not just unethical, its really malpractice. And its not like lawyers done get fired and they cant handle getting fired.
However, please do make sure that you have all documents that you need to do your own 485 filing. If there are some documents like 140 approval or other stuff that only he has, then you will have to get it out of him, which he just might delay (a little) in case if he is an absolute nut job.
For me, I dont care what the lawyer thinks of immigrants as long as the job is done in a TIMELY manner without mistakes. If he hates immigrants and votes for Jeff Sessions, I dont care about it. All I want is TIMELINESS and ERROR FREE job. After that, he can hate anyone he wants and stick pins in voodoo dolls of immigrants.
I am really sick and tired of my attorney. He is making money out of immigrants but he does not like immigrants based on our dicussion.
I think we are very well educated and can easily take care of 485 filing.
My attorney will charge me at least $3000 for it although I got his referral from AILA. On top of that he delays filing my PERM and 140 and having serious attitude problem.
I can easily take care of 485 filing by myself.
My only and great concern is- Is my attorney can screw up my GC processing if I fire him and file 485 on my own?
Your Thoughts..
Thanks!
I doubt that the lawyer would purposely hurt a former client. Its not just unethical, its really malpractice. And its not like lawyers done get fired and they cant handle getting fired.
However, please do make sure that you have all documents that you need to do your own 485 filing. If there are some documents like 140 approval or other stuff that only he has, then you will have to get it out of him, which he just might delay (a little) in case if he is an absolute nut job.
For me, I dont care what the lawyer thinks of immigrants as long as the job is done in a TIMELY manner without mistakes. If he hates immigrants and votes for Jeff Sessions, I dont care about it. All I want is TIMELINESS and ERROR FREE job. After that, he can hate anyone he wants and stick pins in voodoo dolls of immigrants.