February 18, 2010 /

Employee and Employer Relationship Details

Click on following link
Because the language and reasoning of the January 8, 2010 USCIS memorandum on the subject of H1b employer-employee relationships is so convoluted, it is necessary to engage in a detailed analysis to demonstrate, conclusively, the legal and factual errors it contains. Because that memorandum is fatally flawed, it must be disregarded. It is not, after all, a regulation nor does it carry the weight of legal authority. By its own terms its use is limited:
"This memorandum is intended solely for the training and guidance of USCIS personnel in performing their duties relative to the adjudication of applications. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner."
In other words, it is the opinion of one or more individuals at USCIS Headquarters. It is not a regulation and it carries no more authority than the persuasiveness derived from its reasoning and citation of proper legal authorities. As will be demonstrated conclusively immediately below, the legal authorities cited are inapposite and the reasoning is deeply flawed.

Turing now to the memorandum, we see that footnote one contains the following acknowledgement:
"USCIS has also relied on the Department of Labor definition found at 20 C.F.R. 655.715 which states: Employed, employed by the employer, or employment relationship means the employment relationship as determined under the common law, under which the key determinant is the putative employer's right to control the means and manner in which the work is performed. Under the common law, "no shorthand formula or magic phrase * * * can be applied to find the answer * * *. [A]ll of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive." NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254,258 (1968)."
Unfortunately, the USCIS either misunderstood what the Department of Labor wrote, or simply did not fully research this issue. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Notice of Final Rulemaking: "Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-1B Visas in Specialty Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States (December 20, 2000)" 65 Fed. Reg. 245, pages 80109-80158, Supplementary Information explained that while the DOL initially proposed a multi-part test to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists for H1b purposes, in the end, they decided that:
"Upon reflection, however, the Department has concluded that the regulation should not include a detailed list of prescribed factors. The Department believes that the factors identified in the NPRM provide a useful framework, based on the common law, for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors. Nevertheless, to avoid any potential misunderstanding that the factors on the list are exclusive or that factors not listed are less deserving of consideration, the Department has decided that no list of factors should be included in the Interim Final Rule. The Interim Final Rule reiterates that the common-law test requires an assessment of all the factors bearing on the employment relationship, with the right to control the means and manner of work being the key determinant but with no one factor controlling."
The initial DOL list of factors reflected the analysis originally developed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, cited with favor by the U.S. Supreme Court:
"As noted in the NPRM, the proposed list of factors for determining whether an employment relationship exists was drawn from a framework developed by the EEOC for its policies on contingent workers. And as the EEOC recognized, its framework was derived from non-exclusive lists of factors in Darden and the other sources for the common law test cited by the Supreme Court in Darden: Reid, the IRS ruling, and the Restatement (Second) of Agency 220(2) (1958).

Each of these sources for the common law test recognizes "the right to control" as the key determinant in ascertaining the existence of an employment relationship. As stated by the EEOC: "The worker is a covered employee * * * if the right to control the means and manner of her work performance rests with the firm and/or its client rather than with the worker herself." Similarly, the IRS Revenue Ruling states: "[G]enerally the relationship of employer and employee exists when the person or persons for whom the services are performed have the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services, not only as to the result to be accomplished by the work, but also as to the details and means by which that result is to be accomplished. * * * It is not necessary that the employer actually direct or control the manner in which the services are performed; it is sufficient if the employer has the right to do so." See also the Supreme Court in the Darden and Reid and Section 220(1) Restatement (Second) of Agency. Thus, an employer that properly applies any formulation of the common law test, grounded upon the cited authorities, should obtain the same conclusion regarding an individual's employment status"
In the Clackamas Gastroenterology Assoc. v. Wells, 538 U.S.A40 (2003) (Clackamas) decision, the United States Supreme Court also deferred to the EEOC analysis as to what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship. In that case, the Court was faced with the issue of "whether four physicians actively engaged in medical practice as shareholders and directors of a professional corporation should be counted as 'employees.'" This is a very different question than the one presented by this petition. Nonetheless, the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court as to the correct decisional methodology is equally valid in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists in this case.

In Clackamas, the court was presented with the issue of whether shareholder-directors of a corporation qualified as employees. To resolve the issue, the Court turned to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission analysis of that specific question. Following the EEOC guidelines, the Court employed a six question test to resolve the "shareholder-director as employee" question:
"This is the position that is advocated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that has special enforcement responsibilities under the ADA and other federal statutes containing similar threshold issues for determining coverage. It argues that a court should examine "whether shareholder-directors operate independently and manage the business or instead are subject to the firm's control." Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 8. According to the EEOC's view, "[i]f the shareholder-directors operate independently and manage the business, they are proprietors and not employees; if they are subject to the firm's control, they are employees." Ibid. Specific EEOC guidelines discuss both the broad question of who is an "employee" and the narrower question of when partners, officers, members of boards of directors, and major shareholders qualify as employees. See 2 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Compliance Manual [449] §§ 605:0008–605:00010 (2000) (hereinafter EEOC Compliance Manual).7 With respect to the broad question, the guidelines list 16 factors—taken from Darden, 503 U. S., at 323–324—that may be relevant to "whether the employer controls the means and manner of the worker's work performance." EEOC Compliance Manual § 605:0008, and n. 71.8 The guidelines list six factors to be considered in answering the narrower question, which they frame as "whether the individual acts independently and participates in managing the organization, or whether the individual is subject to the organization's control." Id., § 605:0009. We are persuaded by the EEOC's focus on the common law touchstone of control, see Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944),9 and specifically by its submission that each of the following six factors is relevant to the inquiry whether a shareholder-director is an employee:" (Clackamas, at 448, 449)
Here, we are not dealing with shareholder-directors; we are dealing with an employee that has been placed at a third party site. Just as the EEOC provided an analysis of the six factors that should be employed to determine whether a shareholder-director is an employee, the EEOC has provided a number of factors to determine whether someone placed at a third part job site by a consulting company qualifies as an "employee" of the consulting company.

In the EEOC Compliance Manual, cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Clackamas as the correct analytical framework, we find the following:
1. Are staffing firm workers "employees" within the meaning of the federal employment discrimination laws?

Yes, in the great majority of circumstances.7 The threshold question is whether a staffing firm worker is an "employee" or an "independent contractor." The worker is a covered employee under the anti-discrimination statutes if the right to control the means and manner of her work performance rests with the firm and/or its client rather than with the worker herself. The label used to describe the worker in the employment contract is not determinative. One must consider all aspects of the worker's relationship with the firm and the firm's client.8 As the Supreme Court has emphasized, there is " no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the answer, . . . all incidents of the relationship must be assessed with no one factor being decisive.'"9 Factors that indicate that the worker is a covered employee include: 10
a)the firm or the client has the right to control when, where, and how the worker performs the job;

b) the work does not require a high level of skill or expertise;

c) the firm or the client rather than the worker furnishes the tools, materials, and equipment;

d) the work is performed on the premises of the firm or the client;

e) there is a continuing relationship between the worker and the firm or the client;

f) the firm or the client has the right to assign additional projects to the worker;

g) the firm or the client sets the hours of work and the duration of the job;

h) the worker is paid by the hour, week, or month rather than for the agreed cost of performing a particular job;

I) the worker has no role in hiring and paying assistants;

j) the work performed by the worker is part of the regular business of the firm or the client;

k) the firm or the client is itself in business;

l) the worker is not engaged in his or her own distinct occupation or business;

m) the firm or the client provides the worker with benefits such as insurance, leave, or workers' compensation;

n) the worker is considered an employee of the firm or the client for tax purposes (i.e., the entity withholds federal, state, and Social Security taxes);

o) the firm or the client can discharge the worker; and

p) the worker and the firm or client believe that they are creating an employer-employee relationship.
This list is not exhaustive. Other aspects of the relationship between the parties may affect the determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists. Furthermore, not all or even a majority of the listed criteria need be met. Rather, the fact-finder must make an assessment based on all of the circumstances in the relationship between the parties.
Example 1: A temporary employment agency hires a worker and assigns him to serve as a computer programmer for one of the agency's clients. The agency pays the worker a salary based on the number of hours worked as reported by the client. The agency also withholds social security and taxes and provides workers' compensation coverage. The client establishes the hours of work and oversees the individual's work. The individual uses the client's equipment and supplies and works on the client's premises. The agency reviews the individual's work based on reports by the client. The agency can terminate the worker if his or her services are unacceptable to the client. Moreover, the worker can terminate the relationship without incurring a penalty. In these circumstances, the worker is an "employee." [Emphasis added]
Here we see, clearly and conclusively, that the EEOC finds that staffing company workers are "employees" – even in situations where they are placed at third party sites and work under the specific direction of the third party client.

This conclusion by the EEOC is clearly opposite the conclusion reached in the January 8, 2010 USCIS memo. Unlike the USCIS memo, however, the EEOC Compliance Manual has been hailed by both the United States Supreme Court and the U.S. Department of Labor (in its NFRM for the H1b regulations at 20 CFR. 655) as an outstanding analysis of the question of employer-employee relationships.

The USCIS memo purports to cite the authorities relied upon by the Supreme Court and the EEOC as authority for the conclusions reached by the USCIS. There is no showing in that memo, however, that links specific legal holdings to the conclusions reached. They simply cite authority and ask the reader to accept it blindly. Unless you are willing to ignore the specific findings of the Supreme Court, the Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, it is impossible to accept the conclusions of the USCIS memo as having any legitimacy.


201 917 0068

comments (1) Read More

January 14, 2010 /

Stock Buzz Jan 14th 2010

02:23 PM Thursday , 14 January
It is a steady session for our market. Sensex is trading at 17,601, up 90 points and Nifty is at 5,264, up 30 points from the previous close.
Source : IRIS
01:51 PM Thursday , 14 January
Our market is seeing some turbulence and trending little lower. But the midcap out performance continues. Sensex is trading at 17,540, up 30 points and Nifty is at 5,246, up 12 points from the previous close.
Source : IRIS
01:50 PM Thursday , 14 January
The market is trading firm. Sensex is trading at 17,588, up 78 points and Nifty is at 5,262, up 28 points from the previous close.
Source : IRIS
01:49 PM Thursday , 14 January
At this hour the market has come off the morning`s high but still trading with gains. Asian markets are also looking firm. Sensex is trading at 17,569, up 59 points from its previous close, and Nifty is at 5,257, up 23 points.
Source : IRIS
09:46 AM Thursday , 14 January
The market opens on a reasonably strong note. Earlier, the US markets ended with gains with the Dow closing on a fresh 15-month high. Asia is trading positive. Sensex is trading at 17,577, up 69 points from its previous close, and Nifty is at 5,257, up 23 points.
Source : IRIS

comments (3) Read More

December 3, 2009 /

Stock Buzz Dec 3rd 2009 Stock Updates

01:40 PM Thursday , 03 December
DD Sharma of Anand Rathi Securities recommends investors to hold Mundra Port with one-year target of Rs 650.
01:38 PM Thursday , 03 December
Neera Jain of crnindia.com recommends investors to buy Lanco Infratech December futures with a target of Rs 650 and stop-loss of Rs 530.
11:19 AM Thursday , 03 December
Mitesh Thacker, technical analyst advises investors to buy IDBI Bank with target of Rs 141 and stop-loss of Rs 126.
Source : CNBC TV18
10:25 AM Thursday , 03 December
Hardik Jain, technical analyst recommends investors to buy Suzlon Energy with target of Rs 89 and stop-loss of Rs 80.

comments (0) Read More

December 2, 2009 /

Take care of your parents. THEY ARE PRECIOUS.

This was narrated by an IAF pilot at a Seminar recently on Human Relations :

Venkatesh Balasubramaniam (who works for IIT) describes how his
gesture of booking an air ticket for his father, his maiden
flight, brought forth a rush of emotions and made him (Venkatesh)
realize that how much we all take for granted when it comes to our

My parents left for our native place on Thursday and we went to the
airport to see them off. In fact, my father had never
traveled by air before, so I just took this opportunity to make him
experience the same. In spite of being asked to book tickets by train,
I got them tickets on Jet Airways. The moment I handed over the
to him, he was surprised to see that I had booked them by air. The
excitement was very apparent on his face, waiting for the time of
travel. Just like a school boy, he was  preparing himself on that day
and we all went to the airport, right from using the trolley for his
luggage, the baggage check-in and asking for a window seat and waiting
restlessly for the security check-in to happen. He was thoroughly
enjoying himself and I, too, was overcome with joy watching him
experience all these things.

As they were about to go in for the security check-in, he walked up to
me with tears in his eyes and thanked me. He became very emotional and
it was not as if I had done something great but the fact that this
meant a great deal to him. When he said thanks, I told him there was
no need to thank me. But later, thinking about the entire incident, I
looked back at my life. As a child, how many dreams our parents have
made come true. Without understanding the financial situation, we ask
for cricket bats, dresses, toys, outings, etc. Irrespective of their
affordability, they have catered to all our needs. Did we ever think
about the sacrifices they had to make to accommodate many of our
wishes? Did we ever say thanks for all that they have done for us?
Same way, today when it comes to our children, we always think that we
should put them in a good school. Regardless of the amount of
donation, we will ensure that we will have to give the child the best,
theme parks, toys, etc. But we tend to forget that our parents have
sacrificed a lot for our sake to see us happy, so it is our
responsibility to ensure that their dreams are realized and what they
failed to see when they were young. It is our responsibility to ensure
that they experience all those and their life is complete.

Many times, when my parents had asked me some questions, I have
actually answered back without patience. When my daughter asks me
something, I have been very polite in answering. Now I realize how
they would have felt at those moments. Let us realize that old age is
a second childhood and
just as we take care of our children, the same attention and same care
needs to be given to our parents and elders. Rather than my dad saying
thank you to me, I would want to say sorry for making him wait so long
for this small dream. I do realize how much he has sacrificed for my
sake and I will do my best to give the best possible attention to all
their wishes.

Just because they are old does not mean that they will have to give up
everything and keep sacrificing for their grandchildren also. They
have wishes, too.

Take care of your parents. THEY ARE PRECIOUS.

comments (0) Read More

December 1, 2009 /

Backlog for EB1, EB2 & EB3


Following the release by the USCIS of their backlog statistics in September, many prospective immigrants began to reevaluate the idea of upgrading to higher preference classifications. Central to any such decision is the answer to the question "How long do I have to wait if I remain in my present classification?" The purpose of this article is to help applicants try and determine just how long that wait will be.

Direct link


The answer to that question, like most things, is complex. It depends on several factors that are unknown at this time. These include:

·         There is an unknown number of pending AOS cases that have not yet been classified or reviewed.
·         In the case of EB2, there is an unknown number of EB3 applicants who are actively in the process of upgrading to EB2.
·         There are additional cases in the pipeline, not accounted for by the available backlog information.

While it is not possible to predict with accuracy precisely how long it will be before specific applicants will receive immigrant visas, it is possible to get some idea of the minimum waiting time. That is, it is possible to determine how long it will be, at an absolute minimum, before a visa number becomes available. The actual waiting time will be longer than the minimum time, but this will at least give people a rough idea of just what they are looking at.

Let's first look at the employment based second preference category (EB2). For purposes of this discussion, we will look at the visa waiting times for China, India, and Worldwide.

The "Worldwide" chargeability area is "current" – meaning that there are more visas available under the quota that there are qualified applicants. This means that anyone chargeable to the Worldwide EB2 category has immediate access to a visa. This condition will remain so for at least the next several years.

Because there are unused visa numbers within the EB2 Worldwide allocation, the remaining numbers may be used by people who are otherwise eligible, but for the single state limit (i.e., citizens of China and India). These applicants may use the leftover EB2 numbers as though they were chargeable to the Worldwide category, as long as visas remain available. That is, those with the oldest priority dates, irrespective of country of birth, are at the head of the line for EB2 visas.

Let's take a look at the backlog information for EB2 visas shown on the CIS website, arranged, by priority dates, area of charge and year:

2001 and earlier

The Worldwide allocation for EB2 is roughly 40,000 visas annually, plus all unused EB1 numbers. For fiscal year 2008, a total of 35,590 employment-based first preference visas were issued. Due to the failure of the CIS to adjudicate enough family based adjustment of status cases, about 25,000 visas from that quota fell over into the employment based quota and a total of 70,135 EB2 visas were issued. For fiscal year 2009, there were considerably fewer family based visas available for use by the EB categories. For FY 2010, the State Department estimates that there will be only about 5,000 such additional visas available. For our purposes, we can assume that EB1 will have about 5,000 leftover visas and another 5,000 will become available from the family based quota. This means that the EB2 visa availability will be approximately 50,000 for this fiscal year.

If we assume that all of the demand shown on the CIS website remains, and that there is no additional demand, the total of pre-approved EB2 cases pending before the CIS with priority dates earlier than 2007 is almost 52,000. In reality, this demand represents about two-thirds of the actual demand, so the likelihood is that the EB2 cutoff date will not move beyond May, 2006 by the end of fiscal year 2010 (September 30, 2010).

If the EB2 cutoff date does reach May, 2006 by the end of FY 2010, then it would likely reach the end of calendar year 2008 (and probably go into early 2009) by the end of fiscal year 2011.

A word of warning is in order at this point. Our office alone has received about 150 inquiries in the last couple of months by people with established EB3 priority dates who wish to file new PERM applications so that they may qualify for EB2. When they do, they will take their EB3 priority dates with them. This means that they will enter the EB2 waiting list at a point much earlier in time.

Our office is but one of many receiving these inquiries. I have to believe that somewhere between 7,500 and 12,000 people are actively in the process of upgrading their preference classifications right now. As the months progress, this number will increase. All of these people will move onto the EB2 waiting list with older priority dates, in some cases as early as 2002. When this happens, it will push those with more recent priority dates back in line, increasing the time they must wait for visa availability.

Having examined EB2, let's now take a look at the more complex problem of EB3 backlogs. Again, we will use the backlog information for EB3 visas shown on the CIS website, arranged, by priority dates, area of charge and year:

2001 and earlier

Availability is a bit more complex in this situation. Recall that the third employment based preference category (EB3) is allocated roughly 40,000 visas annually. These visas are issued on the basis of those with the oldest priority dates receiving visas first. There is, however, a single state limit that prohibits no more than seven (7%) of the total number of visas from being issues to persons born in a single country. This means that no more than 9,800 visas may be issued to persons born in any single country. Note that it is country of birth that determines chargeability, not country of citizenship.

This 9,800 limit applies to all employment based applicants from a single country, including first, second, third, fourth, and fifth preferences. When a country is subject to the single state limit, the 9,800 maximum is divided the same way that the five preferences are divided within the overall EB quota. That is, each of the first three preferences receive 28.8% of the total. For EB3 purposes, this means that there is a maxium allocation of about 2,822 visas annually for each country subject to the single state limit, provided there are that many applicants with sufficiently early priority dates.

Let's take a quick look at how this gets applied to the quota. We start with an overall allocation of 40,000 visas. The single state limits are not guarantees. They are maximum limits imposed on people born in those countries, within the overall limit. Within the 40,000 annual allocation, visas first go to those with the oldest priority dates. If, however, 2,822 people from a single country (including dependents) receive visas in a single fiscal year, then no additional applicants chargeable to that country may receive visas until the new quota becomes available in the next fiscal year. Unlike the second employment based preference category (EB2), there are no unused visas from the Worldwide category to be made available to the single state limited countries.

At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, the Worldwide EB3 cutoff date stands at June 1, 1001. By law, no more than 27% of the overall quota may be allocated in any of the first three quarters. This means that approximately 10,800 visas will be used in EB3 during the first quarter. This figure is greater than the total number of EB3 AOS applicants shown in the CIS backlog charts (8,884) for all applicants with priority dates earlier than 2002 and is further evidence that those charts do not reflect the full size of the demand.

The Visa Office had earlier said that they expected to see the cutoff date for Worldwide EB3 move into early 2006 by spring of next year. This seems likely to happen. For single state limited country applicants, however, the story is very different.

For EB3, the maximum number of visas that may be issued in a single year to applicants from single state limited countries is 2,822 visas. Initially, India and possibly Mexico will have individual cutoff dates that will lag behind the Worldwide EB3 cutoff date. As the Worldwide cutoff date advances, Mexico should catch up, but then the Philippines will start to lag.

The country that is going to see the worst delays, by far, is India. Let's take another look at the CIS reported demand for EB3 India AOS applicants, understanding that these numbers represent minimum demand and that the actual demand is greater:

2001 and earlier

If we subtract 2,822 visas per year from these total, we see that all of the pre-2002 India EB3 cases shown here should be resolved before the end of FY 2010. This is where things slow down. At the start of FY 2011, there would still be 7,756 AOS applicants in line with priority dates for 2002. Reducing this number at a rate of 2,822 visas per year it will take almost three and a half years to eliminate all of the currently pending (and reported) Indian EB3 adjustment of status cases. This would be some time in the late winter or early spring of 2015. At that point, the Indian EB3 cutoff date would likely move into 2003. At that rate, it would then be approximately 2020 before the cutoff date would move into 2004. There isn't much point in taking this exercise any further. It is obvious that Indian EB3 is not going to go anywhere absent legislative relief.

Indian EB3 applicants have three options:

1.    Stay the course and wait.
2.    Hope for legislative relief.
3.    Find a way to upgrade to EB2.

Unfortunately, there isn't a fourth option.

If you would like to discuss this article, please post your comments in the thread we have created for this purpose at http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/general-immigration-questions/9599-just-how-bad-is-the-backlog-discussion-thread.html#post38022

comments (3) Read More


FY2010 H1B quota

After many months of little or no movement, we are at last seeing an increasing number of new H1B petitions accepted by the USCIS under the fiscal year 2010 quota. As of November  27th, the USCIS reported that they had received approximately 58,900 petitions.

The annual quota limit is 65,000. The law provides special set asides of up to 6,800 numbers for petitions filed for citizens of Chile and Singapore, under special free trade agreements. Technically, this reduces the overall quota to 58,200. Most of the Chile/Singapore set asides, however, are returned to the main pool and used by "regular" H1B petitioners. Given that this is a relatively small number, however, it shouldn't delay by too long the date on which the quota is finally reached.


Given the increasing number of filings, and the new sense of urgency that will undoubtedly result in more speculative filings by people hoping to get in while visas are still available, we can expect to see the quota reached most likely no later than the end of the first week in December. Please remember that when the USCIS determines that the quota has been reached, they will conduct a lottery for all cases received on the final day. Thus, for example, if the final day for H1B filings turns out to be December 4th, then the USCIS will accept all cases filed through December 3rd, but hold a lottery for the remaining open spots from those cases filed on December 4th.


If the past is a guide, we can expect to see the USCIS hold a number of cases that were not selected for inclusion in the quota, to be processed in the event quota spots open up as a result of denials, withdrawals, or visa numbers returned as a result of revocations.


If you would like to discuss this article, we have set up a thread for this purpose. Please click on this link to visit that thread http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/working-nonimmigrant-visas/9605-the-fy2010-h1b-quota-how-long-will-it-last.html#post38071


comments (1) Read More


Stock Buzz December 1st 2009 Stock Updates

12:58 PM Tuesday , 01 December
Rajesh Jain of SMC Global Securities recommends investors to buy HCL Technologies with target of Rs 358 plus and stop-loss of Rs 332.
12:57 PM Tuesday , 01 December
Gaurang Shah of Geojit BNP Paribas recommends investors to hold Aurobindo Pharma for gains of 20-25% in one year.
10:06 AM Tuesday , 01 December
Vijay Bhambwani, technical analyst advises investors to buy Hindalco December Futures above Rs 137 with target of Rs 140-142 and stop-loss of Rs 135.
Source : CNBC TV18
10:05 AM Tuesday , 01 December
Ashwani Gujral, technical analyst advises investors to buy Mahindra Ugine with target of Rs 55 and stop-loss of Rs 48.
Source : CNBC TV18
10:03 AM Tuesday , 01 December
Vijay Bhambwani, technical analyst recommends investors to buy Cairn India December Futures above Rs 278 with target of Rs 280-282 and stop-loss of Rs 275.
Source : CNBC TV18

comments (0) Read More

November 30, 2009 /

Stock Buzz Nov 30th 2009

02:32 PM Monday , 30 November
Ashish Maheshwari of Global Capital Market recommends investors to buy Ansal Properties with one-year target of Rs 110.
Source : IRIS
02:21 PM Monday , 30 November
Neera Jain, technical analyst recommends investors to buy Tata Motors with target of Rs 700 and stop-loss of Rs 600
11:22 AM Monday , 30 November
Prakash Gaba, technical analyst recommends investors to buy IFCI with a target of Rs 57 and stop-loss of Rs 49.
10:45 AM Monday , 30 November
Anu Jain of India Infoline recommends investors to buy Canara Bank with a target of Rs 404 plus and stop-loss of Rs 375.
Source : CNBC TV18

comments (0) Read More