looivy
06-11 10:36 PM
Emaied IL senator and will snail mail as well. Same for my spouse.
wallpaper Lil-Wayne-2011-HOT-97-Summer-
mheggade
07-14 01:22 PM
link does not work
HOPE_GC_SOON
03-20 09:55 AM
Don�t do character assassination of EB3 applicants. EB3s who now have qualifications/job for EB2 should definitely try to convert over to EB2. EB3s don�t listen to people like these. It�s the same mentality which opposes eliminating country limits; more over this same mentality which opposes EB reforms.
Grow up��
Trying to stop an EB3 person who spent more time than you in GC queue and has qualification for EB2 is just insane.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
Grow up��
Trying to stop an EB3 person who spent more time than you in GC queue and has qualification for EB2 is just insane.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
2011 Lil-Wayne-2011-HOT-97-Summer-
keshtwo
07-09 04:40 PM
I hope this lawsuit fails. Looking ahead this lawsuit, if it succeeds might do us more damage than good. Law of unintended consequences states that something can happen we haven't thought of.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
more...
sc3
10-16 06:05 PM
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people’s answers.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
pmb76
07-13 12:00 AM
People, I think it is best we not doubt the intentions of anybody willing to speak on our behalf. It is a critical hour and we will take all the help we need. Murthy could've just not sent the letter and kept quiet. What would you say to that ? What do you say to other lawyers who have not even done this simple thing of writing a letter to Chertoff ?
Atleast she's not trying to add millions of hits to her website by writing sensational news every hour, unlike some other lawyers :)
I think she deserves a "Thank you" for this nice gesture.
Full Disclosure : My lawyer is not Murthy. I have spoken with her once long time ago and decided not to go with her for other reasons.
Atleast she's not trying to add millions of hits to her website by writing sensational news every hour, unlike some other lawyers :)
I think she deserves a "Thank you" for this nice gesture.
Full Disclosure : My lawyer is not Murthy. I have spoken with her once long time ago and decided not to go with her for other reasons.
more...
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
2010 Lil Wayne 2011 PSD
bfadlia
05-27 03:59 PM
I have made copies of my passport several times at kinkos. I have also send those to immigration lawyer etc..
I asked a guy in kinkos to photocopy for me, told me he can't, it's illeagel, then lowering his voice as if we're drug dealers said go to that self serve copier and do it yourself and I'll pretend I didn't see.
I asked a guy in kinkos to photocopy for me, told me he can't, it's illeagel, then lowering his voice as if we're drug dealers said go to that self serve copier and do it yourself and I'll pretend I didn't see.
more...
ashkam
12-21 07:46 AM
Now I am really afraid. G-325 form has section to provide last 5 jobs. Since I had a gap, I didn't provide the details for the year 2001. I am royally screwed now! :(
G-325 does not ask for last 5 jobs, only last 5 year jobs, so you should be okay.
G-325 does not ask for last 5 jobs, only last 5 year jobs, so you should be okay.
hair if Lil+wayne+2011+songs
tampacoolie
06-30 09:44 PM
Suck some beer and get some good sleep yo.
Leave the delivery stuff to Fedex or UPS guys, else you will end up with traffic congestion in Lincon, Nebraska on Monday morning.
Leave the delivery stuff to Fedex or UPS guys, else you will end up with traffic congestion in Lincon, Nebraska on Monday morning.
more...
GreenSeaTurtle
09-19 12:05 PM
I have to thank the organizers for making this happen it takes a lot of work. I joined late but felt very happy to be a part of it. This is just the beginning.
Some observations
-------------------
Our numbers should have be in 100 thousands not 1000s. I felt bad that more people did not show up. Everytime we all met each other we never fail to talk about the GC process and where we are and how frustrating the whole process is? If this affects us so much why not do something about it when you have an opportunity...Do you want to suffer in silence or break free?
Immigration voice should be popularized more. People know of Murthy.com etc. but I think not many people are aware of this site so we have to popularize it more by telling friends, family etc.
The rally could have done with more publicity to attract people especially i don't see why people in the Tri-State area who are so close did not show up in large numbers. Hats off to folks from California, NY and orther places who travelled especially for this event.
The next time there is any rally I will personally motivate and bring people this is the least I can do.
Some observations
-------------------
Our numbers should have be in 100 thousands not 1000s. I felt bad that more people did not show up. Everytime we all met each other we never fail to talk about the GC process and where we are and how frustrating the whole process is? If this affects us so much why not do something about it when you have an opportunity...Do you want to suffer in silence or break free?
Immigration voice should be popularized more. People know of Murthy.com etc. but I think not many people are aware of this site so we have to popularize it more by telling friends, family etc.
The rally could have done with more publicity to attract people especially i don't see why people in the Tri-State area who are so close did not show up in large numbers. Hats off to folks from California, NY and orther places who travelled especially for this event.
The next time there is any rally I will personally motivate and bring people this is the least I can do.
hot lil wayne 2011.
signifer123
02-17 05:41 AM
kirupa.com
so!!!!!!!
none of them is free???
uhhh, look at the post in the very first part of the thread i set up this (%0Ahttp://www.gamedev.net/community/fo...topic_id=202348) link for a list of a bunch of 3d programs varying from free to over 5k
so!!!!!!!
none of them is free???
uhhh, look at the post in the very first part of the thread i set up this (%0Ahttp://www.gamedev.net/community/fo...topic_id=202348) link for a list of a bunch of 3d programs varying from free to over 5k
more...
house Lil Wayne – Red State 2011
qesehmk
02-12 01:28 PM
pbuckeye, , You are still more concerned about what immigration body shop has to say than the facts and numbers on the ground. I am confused :confused:
This whole thread is about what Ron Gotcher published. I didn't start this thread. I am only contributing my view that based on available information some things make sense and some dont. The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
This whole thread is about what Ron Gotcher published. I didn't start this thread. I am only contributing my view that based on available information some things make sense and some dont. The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
Does this help? (Again this is my view... don't want to push it onto others)
tattoo Lil Wayne - The Carter IV 2011
nixstor
04-23 04:57 PM
Read my message - I am *NOT* an IV member and nor did I represent myself as one - like many people I just subscribed to public portal - if you want to limit it to IV members, you must consider doing that .
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
more...
pictures Green amp; Yellow - Lil Wayne
coolmanasip
07-24 10:08 AM
60 days...period of authorized stay.....check with the international advisor in school......
dresses Lil+wayne+quotes+2011;
Mr. Brown
03-10 04:59 PM
Please pardon me for my ignorance but why is that every admin fix will work with money in this country?
Does this mean we have to pay money to fix something in the system that will be useful to this country (eg: Senetors take the money and introduce the bills. Do you guys think it is equvalent to Bribe in other countries?)
I could recall that July '07 fiasco has been fixed without we donate anything.
Yes, I know that nothing is free in this country however I am not sure why should we pay bribe (or whatever you call) to fix something in the system?
These senetrors should have minimum knowledge that if they give GCs to us then we will flourish the economy in return. That is my point...
Welcome to Capitalism!
...and yes it is the equivalent of bribes taken by our political people in India. As with most things Americans do it diplomatically by calling it "party funds" :-)
Does this mean we have to pay money to fix something in the system that will be useful to this country (eg: Senetors take the money and introduce the bills. Do you guys think it is equvalent to Bribe in other countries?)
I could recall that July '07 fiasco has been fixed without we donate anything.
Yes, I know that nothing is free in this country however I am not sure why should we pay bribe (or whatever you call) to fix something in the system?
These senetrors should have minimum knowledge that if they give GCs to us then we will flourish the economy in return. That is my point...
Welcome to Capitalism!
...and yes it is the equivalent of bribes taken by our political people in India. As with most things Americans do it diplomatically by calling it "party funds" :-)
more...
makeup Lil-wayne-2011-nba-all-star-
vandanaverdia
09-10 04:26 PM
I am in line for the green card for years & the wait is endless..... This is my chance to ease me....
Come join hands....
Come join hands....
girlfriend Lil wayne Talk 2 me new lil
sledge_hammer
02-14 12:49 PM
To answer your question, no, I'm not a conservative Christian. I'm a Hindu and I'm proud of it!
Now that I have answered your question, allow me ask YOU a few questions:
1. If I really were a Conservative Christian, does my belief that Jew were persecuted hold any less credibility?
2. Are you an anti semite?
3. Are you friends with Ahmedenejad?
4. Do you watch a lot of Mel Gibson movies when you're not otherwise writing nonsense on this forum? :)
Are you a jew or are you asking this because you are a conservative Christan and you believe that jews are special because Christ was jew at the time of birth? Not that there is anything wrong with either, but I just wanted to know.
"What I believe" - What difference does it make? Why do you ask? You see its a matter of perspective. Someone may feel extremely miserable going through the process and its possible that that person may chose to compare this experience with the real victims of ethnic cleansing. Just because there is no violence involved, it doesn't mean that things cannot be comparable. Mental agony and silent torture in even worst when compared with physical violence because one is dying every moment you live. You may argue that we are all dying every moment we live, then isn't life just a torture?
Its not necessary that others MUST believe or experience their life the way you or I do. Everybody lives through a different experience. You may not agree with their version or their perspective, but it is not reasonable to force someone to draw comparison based on what you believe. And this is what I believe.
.
Now that I have answered your question, allow me ask YOU a few questions:
1. If I really were a Conservative Christian, does my belief that Jew were persecuted hold any less credibility?
2. Are you an anti semite?
3. Are you friends with Ahmedenejad?
4. Do you watch a lot of Mel Gibson movies when you're not otherwise writing nonsense on this forum? :)
Are you a jew or are you asking this because you are a conservative Christan and you believe that jews are special because Christ was jew at the time of birth? Not that there is anything wrong with either, but I just wanted to know.
"What I believe" - What difference does it make? Why do you ask? You see its a matter of perspective. Someone may feel extremely miserable going through the process and its possible that that person may chose to compare this experience with the real victims of ethnic cleansing. Just because there is no violence involved, it doesn't mean that things cannot be comparable. Mental agony and silent torture in even worst when compared with physical violence because one is dying every moment you live. You may argue that we are all dying every moment we live, then isn't life just a torture?
Its not necessary that others MUST believe or experience their life the way you or I do. Everybody lives through a different experience. You may not agree with their version or their perspective, but it is not reasonable to force someone to draw comparison based on what you believe. And this is what I believe.
.
hairstyles Lil-Wayne-2011-HOT-97-Summer-
stldude
07-13 08:21 AM
Guys ! ! ! ! AT this stage let's take all the help we get from any possible source. Although i agree that Murthy is trying to stab in to the fame/sucess in this fabulous effort by IV, but it's better to add on more Voices to this cause...
The whole GC Seekercommunity knows that IV played a very big role in creating a public awareness and making people talk. Let's not bother commenting on Murthy's evil intentions...
The whole GC Seekercommunity knows that IV played a very big role in creating a public awareness and making people talk. Let's not bother commenting on Murthy's evil intentions...
pappu
06-10 12:28 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
gimme_GC2006
07-15 10:53 AM
We got a call from USCIS person for verifying our address. She said our finger prints have been expired and will send new notices (which will reach us in about 3 weeks)
hmm.
hmm.
No comments:
Post a Comment