sriramkalyan
06-09 12:05 PM
i was regular contributor to IV ..I stopped it ..
My request is ..
All postings on IV should identify the user as contributing member or a Free User.
That change will help IV to increase Funding ..
I will sign up for monthly recurring to IV if I see above change ..
My request is ..
All postings on IV should identify the user as contributing member or a Free User.
That change will help IV to increase Funding ..
I will sign up for monthly recurring to IV if I see above change ..
wallpaper Great Christmas Gift Idea #7
chanduv23
11-20 04:36 PM
H1B petition can be revoked automatically if a) employer notifies USCIS that the petition is withdrawn or b) employer goes out of business. See 8 CFR 214.2.(b)(11). So yes, EAD is much safer in this regard. Revoked H1B petition cannot be used for transfer/extension. It's nice to have H1B as a fallback, but it's not a safe heaven.
Here is an interesting article regarding H1B and employer's obligation to notify the USCIS if employment ends.
http://www.chincurtis.com/pdfs/ccid_1_033007-1.pdf
Which means that EAD is much safer than H1b. Then why are Attorneys insisting on the opposite (H1b against EAD?)
If this is confirmed news, i will revisit my blog and make changes
Here is an interesting article regarding H1B and employer's obligation to notify the USCIS if employment ends.
http://www.chincurtis.com/pdfs/ccid_1_033007-1.pdf
Which means that EAD is much safer than H1b. Then why are Attorneys insisting on the opposite (H1b against EAD?)
If this is confirmed news, i will revisit my blog and make changes
go_guy123
03-12 11:58 PM
My application was finally approved yesterday after almost 7 years in queue. Here is the sequence of events right before the approval.
RFE email on 02/13/09
2nd Biometrics Notice received on 02/17/09
Lawyer receives RFE for EVL, EAD cards and Marriage Certificate on 02/24/09
Completed Code 3 Biometrics on 02/26/09
Soft LUD immediately after Biometrics on 02/26/09
USCIS receives RFE reply on 02/27/09, Hard LUD and email on the same day
Another soft LUD on 03/02/09
CPO email on 03/10/09
Welcome email on 03/10/09
My PD has been current for a long time, but my application had not been touched and then suddenly USCIS became a model of efficiency. I am sure they are opening applications and approving or RFE'ing all they can. Hang in there guys.
I am a bit curious. How did you manage to stay in same company for 7 years. Or did you do labor transfer or changed company using EAD/AP.
RFE email on 02/13/09
2nd Biometrics Notice received on 02/17/09
Lawyer receives RFE for EVL, EAD cards and Marriage Certificate on 02/24/09
Completed Code 3 Biometrics on 02/26/09
Soft LUD immediately after Biometrics on 02/26/09
USCIS receives RFE reply on 02/27/09, Hard LUD and email on the same day
Another soft LUD on 03/02/09
CPO email on 03/10/09
Welcome email on 03/10/09
My PD has been current for a long time, but my application had not been touched and then suddenly USCIS became a model of efficiency. I am sure they are opening applications and approving or RFE'ing all they can. Hang in there guys.
I am a bit curious. How did you manage to stay in same company for 7 years. Or did you do labor transfer or changed company using EAD/AP.
2011 Gibson Les Paul 2008 Standard
axp817
12-02 06:11 PM
I am guessing that your EAD was driven by the address which you provided while applying for it. CIS may not confirm what's on file, when there is already an address mentioned in application itself.
This could very well be true. My first biometric appointment notice was mailed to me when I was changing residence, and it probably went to the old address, I remember not receiving it and my old attorney's office sending me their copy of it. I had done the AR-15 update right around the same time, but I guess it didn't go through. Anyway, since I spoke directly with someone in Nebraska this time around, I am hoping they now have the right address on file.
This could very well be true. My first biometric appointment notice was mailed to me when I was changing residence, and it probably went to the old address, I remember not receiving it and my old attorney's office sending me their copy of it. I had done the AR-15 update right around the same time, but I guess it didn't go through. Anyway, since I spoke directly with someone in Nebraska this time around, I am hoping they now have the right address on file.
more...
GayatriS
01-05 08:06 PM
I have been confused by some of the things Professor Wadhwa says -- being opposed to H1 visas and saying there are no shortages of engineers. I saw this video on Youtube which explained everything to me. He is acting like a true American -- like we should once we become citizens. He is advising America on how they can stay competetive -- like all of us want for this great country. But he is also saying that the real solution is for America to welcome immigrants as permanent residents rather than on temporary visas.
Now I understand his message -- if you want to bring in the best from all over the world, bring them here on green cards -- not H1 visas. I also read one of his interviews where he said he was concerned about how H1 workers were taken advantage of and how they lived in immigration limbo. He really does care about doing what is right for all of us.
I totally totally agree with Professor Sahib! I wish the government listens to him. What he is saying is good for everyone. As Indians we want America to succeed and prosper and we want to be a big part of the reason they prosper.
Please see this and give it a good review -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvqqYDmLgjY
Gayatri
Now I understand his message -- if you want to bring in the best from all over the world, bring them here on green cards -- not H1 visas. I also read one of his interviews where he said he was concerned about how H1 workers were taken advantage of and how they lived in immigration limbo. He really does care about doing what is right for all of us.
I totally totally agree with Professor Sahib! I wish the government listens to him. What he is saying is good for everyone. As Indians we want America to succeed and prosper and we want to be a big part of the reason they prosper.
Please see this and give it a good review -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvqqYDmLgjY
Gayatri
ragz4u
03-08 02:18 PM
This will go on until 1.00 pm and there will not be any session in the afternoon tomorrow.
Senator Specter is going to talk to Sen. Bill Frist so that all Judiciary Committee members turn up tomorrow
Senator Specter is going to talk to Sen. Bill Frist so that all Judiciary Committee members turn up tomorrow
more...
nlssubbu
10-01 12:25 PM
Macaca, thanks for the analysis.
My question is, is IV paying enough attention to this?
What I have seen is that IV is spending 80% of its energy to change the current immigration law (increase the EB visa numbers in some fashion etc.). As far as I can see, this is not going any where due to a variety of reasons.
Is it time to rethink our priorities? If we put more of our collective energy to force USCIS to do a better job, will we get better results? Sure, the immigration law needs fixing. But our predicament is not due to immigration law. Our predicament is that the USCIS is not doing a good job. They are only working 4 hours a day. (I saw a post from a person who went and looked around the USCIS parking lot on a Friday :D. He/She says the parking lot was empty in the afternoon.).
I suggest that the IV core spend 80% of energy in fixing the USCIS bottleneck. We should have another rally infront of the USCIS doorsteps (or a flower campaign or a card campaign or a degree copy sending campaign). 20% of the energy can still be spent on fixing immigration law.
I do not think that USCIS bottleneck alone could cause such a huge retrogression. I do agree that USCIS should increase their efficiency and should not waste visa every year. Though it is definite that using all the visas allocated efficiently will help, this alone do not reduce retrogression to a greater extent.
IV is looking in the right direction in the long term. I am of the opinion that, we as affected by the USCIS, can take it up to make them accountable for the loss.
Thanks
My question is, is IV paying enough attention to this?
What I have seen is that IV is spending 80% of its energy to change the current immigration law (increase the EB visa numbers in some fashion etc.). As far as I can see, this is not going any where due to a variety of reasons.
Is it time to rethink our priorities? If we put more of our collective energy to force USCIS to do a better job, will we get better results? Sure, the immigration law needs fixing. But our predicament is not due to immigration law. Our predicament is that the USCIS is not doing a good job. They are only working 4 hours a day. (I saw a post from a person who went and looked around the USCIS parking lot on a Friday :D. He/She says the parking lot was empty in the afternoon.).
I suggest that the IV core spend 80% of energy in fixing the USCIS bottleneck. We should have another rally infront of the USCIS doorsteps (or a flower campaign or a card campaign or a degree copy sending campaign). 20% of the energy can still be spent on fixing immigration law.
I do not think that USCIS bottleneck alone could cause such a huge retrogression. I do agree that USCIS should increase their efficiency and should not waste visa every year. Though it is definite that using all the visas allocated efficiently will help, this alone do not reduce retrogression to a greater extent.
IV is looking in the right direction in the long term. I am of the opinion that, we as affected by the USCIS, can take it up to make them accountable for the loss.
Thanks
2010 1958 Gibson Les Paul
pankajkakkar
08-08 02:22 PM
Pankaj, the writeup is spot on except for the above. I am not sure it takes anyone in the EB category, 20 years to get the GC. It may happen in the future if retrogression is not fixed.
IMHO, it is important that we stick to facts when we write articles/op eds etc.
You make a good point. However, since I have mentioned both EB and FB in the article, I think it is appropriate to include that it can in fact take 20 years to get the GC. The Senate bill does have provisions to ameliorate both EB and FB backlogs, as far as I remember.
Pankaj
IMHO, it is important that we stick to facts when we write articles/op eds etc.
You make a good point. However, since I have mentioned both EB and FB in the article, I think it is appropriate to include that it can in fact take 20 years to get the GC. The Senate bill does have provisions to ameliorate both EB and FB backlogs, as far as I remember.
Pankaj
more...
Macaca
09-12 04:06 PM
RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEELA BANERJEE: nbanerjee@nytimes.com *
JAMES BARRON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NINA BERNSTEIN: nbernstein@nytimes.com *
JULIE BOSMAN
EMILY BRADY
CARA BUCKLEY
DAVID W. CHEN
MARJORIE CONNELLY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HELENE COOPER
ANNIE CORREAL
NICOLE COTRONEO
MONICA DAVEY
LAWRENCE DOWNES
TIMOTHY EGAN
KAREEM FAHIM
ALAN FEUER
ROBIN FINN
IAN FISHER
SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN sgfreedman@nytimes.com
DAVID GONZALEZ
STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Clyde Haberman
RAYMOND HERNANDEZ (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JOSEPH P. HOAR
JOHN HOLUSHA
CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
KIRK JOHNSON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
CLIFFORD KRAUSS
PAUL KRUGMAN krugman@nytimes.com
MARC LACEY
BRUCE LAMBERT
DAVID LEONHARDT Leonhardt@nytimes.com
PATRICIA NELSON LIMERICK
STEVE LOHR: slohr@nytimes.com *
MICHAEL LUO (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEIL MacFARQUHAR
EILEEN MARKEY
ROBERT D. McFADDEN
JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
TIM MURPHY
MIREYA NAVARRO
JACQUELINE PALANK: jpalank@nytimes.com
ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) rpear@nytimes.com
JULIA PRESTON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) juliapreston@nytimes.com
ANTHONY RAMIREZ: aramirez@nytimes.com | anthonyramirez@nytimes (did not work)
DAVID K. RANDALL
SAM ROBERTS
JESS ROW
JIM RUTENBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
MARC SANTORA (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JENNIFER STEINHAUER (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
DAVID STOUT (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HEATHER TIMMONS
ROBIN TONER
MICHAEL WINERIP parenting@nytimes.com
JEFF ZELENY
NEELA BANERJEE: nbanerjee@nytimes.com *
JAMES BARRON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NINA BERNSTEIN: nbernstein@nytimes.com *
JULIE BOSMAN
EMILY BRADY
CARA BUCKLEY
DAVID W. CHEN
MARJORIE CONNELLY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HELENE COOPER
ANNIE CORREAL
NICOLE COTRONEO
MONICA DAVEY
LAWRENCE DOWNES
TIMOTHY EGAN
KAREEM FAHIM
ALAN FEUER
ROBIN FINN
IAN FISHER
SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN sgfreedman@nytimes.com
DAVID GONZALEZ
STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Clyde Haberman
RAYMOND HERNANDEZ (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JOSEPH P. HOAR
JOHN HOLUSHA
CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
KIRK JOHNSON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
CLIFFORD KRAUSS
PAUL KRUGMAN krugman@nytimes.com
MARC LACEY
BRUCE LAMBERT
DAVID LEONHARDT Leonhardt@nytimes.com
PATRICIA NELSON LIMERICK
STEVE LOHR: slohr@nytimes.com *
MICHAEL LUO (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEIL MacFARQUHAR
EILEEN MARKEY
ROBERT D. McFADDEN
JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
TIM MURPHY
MIREYA NAVARRO
JACQUELINE PALANK: jpalank@nytimes.com
ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) rpear@nytimes.com
JULIA PRESTON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) juliapreston@nytimes.com
ANTHONY RAMIREZ: aramirez@nytimes.com | anthonyramirez@nytimes (did not work)
DAVID K. RANDALL
SAM ROBERTS
JESS ROW
JIM RUTENBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
MARC SANTORA (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JENNIFER STEINHAUER (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
DAVID STOUT (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HEATHER TIMMONS
ROBIN TONER
MICHAEL WINERIP parenting@nytimes.com
JEFF ZELENY
hair Les Paul Standard 2008
mbawa2574
09-17 08:55 PM
There cannot be partners for LLC located internationally ?
more...
wellwisher02
04-01 09:26 AM
Wow, so you're telling me be happy as somebody else is in pain now ???
Their problems doesn't make me smile here. I want solutions to my problems.
If you need solutions to your problems, you need to act as professionally as possible. Please stop throwing tantrums and also mind your P's and Q's when you utter expletives against the USCIS. Would you be brave enough, if not foolhardy enough, to reproduce whatever you've said in your threads here in a separate letter and send it out to the USCIS? Trust me, you'll not, since you'll act politely and courteously to make out your case. Decorous behaviour is called for when dealing with pertinent issues in the IV forum.
Their problems doesn't make me smile here. I want solutions to my problems.
If you need solutions to your problems, you need to act as professionally as possible. Please stop throwing tantrums and also mind your P's and Q's when you utter expletives against the USCIS. Would you be brave enough, if not foolhardy enough, to reproduce whatever you've said in your threads here in a separate letter and send it out to the USCIS? Trust me, you'll not, since you'll act politely and courteously to make out your case. Decorous behaviour is called for when dealing with pertinent issues in the IV forum.
hot 2002 Gibson Les Paul Standard
Buran
10-13 11:25 AM
For FY2006 (Oct 1st, 2005 - Sep 30, 2006) a total of 30,512 Schedule "A" visas were used.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table07d.xls
Schedule "A" was current from June 1, 2005 till October 31, 2006
According to DHS statistics 5,125 schedule "A" visas were used in FY2005 (June 1st, 2005 - Sep 30, 2006).
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2005/table07.xls
So, from June 1, 2005 till September 30, 2006 only 36,367 Schedule "A" visas were used.
Now if 50,000 were available under schedule "A" what happen to 50,000-36,367=14,363 visas? I doubt very much that so many petitions were filed in October 2006 - the last month when this category was current and for new applicants the only option was AOS, even considering the fact that consulates conducted interviews in October, 2006 and November, 2006 they could not use 14,363 visas! Especially considering the fact that not all applications got approved (because of the Visacreen, etc).
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table07d.xls
Schedule "A" was current from June 1, 2005 till October 31, 2006
According to DHS statistics 5,125 schedule "A" visas were used in FY2005 (June 1st, 2005 - Sep 30, 2006).
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2005/table07.xls
So, from June 1, 2005 till September 30, 2006 only 36,367 Schedule "A" visas were used.
Now if 50,000 were available under schedule "A" what happen to 50,000-36,367=14,363 visas? I doubt very much that so many petitions were filed in October 2006 - the last month when this category was current and for new applicants the only option was AOS, even considering the fact that consulates conducted interviews in October, 2006 and November, 2006 they could not use 14,363 visas! Especially considering the fact that not all applications got approved (because of the Visacreen, etc).
more...
house 1959 Gibson Les Paul Standard
coolpal
09-10 11:04 AM
thanks IV to all ur efforts...
Here's my contribution of $100 (Google Order #431458970400945)
Hope I'd make it to DC... but I am leaving on vacation this month, and might have to work that weekend to finish things before I leave...
thanks,
pal :)
Here's my contribution of $100 (Google Order #431458970400945)
Hope I'd make it to DC... but I am leaving on vacation this month, and might have to work that weekend to finish things before I leave...
thanks,
pal :)
tattoo GIBSON Les paul standard 2008
9years
11-05 01:53 PM
Did you get your I-140 receipt? What is the online status?
more...
pictures Gibson Sunburst Les Paul
ItIsNotFunny
10-21 01:16 PM
Yes its a very serious issue. As chandu mentioned earlier more action items are coming soon to fight this. But in the meantime please show your support and your willingness to fight this - if you havnt sent the mail yet, please do it and vote in the poll above. When we started this campaign, I though that at least a few hundred people will come forward easily - now is the time to act.
With you.
With you.
dresses Gibson Les Paul Standard 08
dvb123
09-13 06:35 PM
Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission. Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission. Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission.
more...
makeup Beautiful Gibson Les Paul
sxm101
09-10 03:42 PM
Like many others I have been following IV since July 2nd. Post July 17th reversal, just like everybody else I was tracking 485 receipts. I did make a promise to myself to contribute to IV once I get the receipts. That's the least I can do. I would have loved to go to DC on the 18th but unfortunately wouldn't be able to make it due to family reasons.
So here goes my insignificant contribution to a significant cause..
Google Order #466997482777279
$100
So here goes my insignificant contribution to a significant cause..
Google Order #466997482777279
$100
girlfriend Gibson Les Paul Standard 2008
husker
07-19 11:41 AM
People, since Aman and lets not forget other core members also (who I am sure have racked up a lot of out of pocket cost) we as a community should gather funds for administrative cost also. GC is not just Aman's/ pappu/logiclife and others core member's dream...its OUR dream, and its not fair that in spite of knowing the time and money spent by the core members we donot share the burden.
So here is what I am thinking, there are 21000+ members of which I think 10,000 can be considered the real people (I am sure there are more..but a real conservative estimate) if we all pitch in $10 for administrative cost I think it would not put any dent in our pockets and this collective effort would not create a financial burden on any of the core members.
Any thoughts!
So here is what I am thinking, there are 21000+ members of which I think 10,000 can be considered the real people (I am sure there are more..but a real conservative estimate) if we all pitch in $10 for administrative cost I think it would not put any dent in our pockets and this collective effort would not create a financial burden on any of the core members.
Any thoughts!
hairstyles gibson les paul deluxe
qplearn
12-18 04:35 PM
qplearn that was a good one. !!!!!!:)
For the benefit of non-Indian members of our group. "-giri" is the slang for "-ism" in hindi(one of India's many languages.) So Gandhism translates to Gandhigiri....
LOL I should have guessed that. My Hindi is getting rusty :(
For the benefit of non-Indian members of our group. "-giri" is the slang for "-ism" in hindi(one of India's many languages.) So Gandhism translates to Gandhigiri....
LOL I should have guessed that. My Hindi is getting rusty :(
himu73
09-09 11:49 AM
I agree! I would't invest in India either. I believe awareness about these facts will save atleast few folks from being duped of hard earned money.
You need to have proper knowledge of the market to invest anywhere. Most of the things you have stated make it clear that you have never been a real estate investor.
I think you missed a chance by not investing in India through 2001 to 2005.Money has doubled tripled and there are buyers who can afford to buy in Tier 1 cities. Those are not the EMPLOYED people but the SELF-EMPLOYED ones.
Study the market carefully and make sound decisions whether India or anywhere but dont make comments based on some analysis.
Also,Investing is an ongoing exercise, whether Real estate,Stocks. you cannot just wake up one day and say I want to invest in Indian real estate. You need to build a portfolio similar to the way you do for Stocks. Start with a some research and a small investment. My suggestion is to join a group of people who are already doing some Real estate investment and go along with them. Just reading someone else's comments and coming to a conclusion is not good. Do more research ,Invest time, Wait for the right opportunity.
Just my few cents.
You need to have proper knowledge of the market to invest anywhere. Most of the things you have stated make it clear that you have never been a real estate investor.
I think you missed a chance by not investing in India through 2001 to 2005.Money has doubled tripled and there are buyers who can afford to buy in Tier 1 cities. Those are not the EMPLOYED people but the SELF-EMPLOYED ones.
Study the market carefully and make sound decisions whether India or anywhere but dont make comments based on some analysis.
Also,Investing is an ongoing exercise, whether Real estate,Stocks. you cannot just wake up one day and say I want to invest in Indian real estate. You need to build a portfolio similar to the way you do for Stocks. Start with a some research and a small investment. My suggestion is to join a group of people who are already doing some Real estate investment and go along with them. Just reading someone else's comments and coming to a conclusion is not good. Do more research ,Invest time, Wait for the right opportunity.
Just my few cents.
TomTancredo
03-04 02:38 PM
Did you get to know what the RFE is about?
Its about late registered birth certificate... They want some secondary evidence...
Its about late registered birth certificate... They want some secondary evidence...
No comments:
Post a Comment