akred
02-15 11:11 PM
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
wallpaper do goldfish eggs look like
smari
03-29 05:05 PM
H1-B transfer petition pending. Could I enter Canada for PR and comeback to US with old H1-B (not stamped) and receipt notice for transfer petition. Any suggestions?
eb3_nepa
10-23 03:39 PM
Now can the company SELL this Labor certification? Can another company BUY such a Certification? I have heard a lot on this site about LC substituion and how they are sold/bought at a premium. How does all that work. Is that even possible?
2011 how do goldfish eggs look
snthampi
07-28 07:09 PM
Good HUmor for a wednesday..
BTW, i lost a good old friend right in first week of landing, we worked @ same company in India(birlasoft), were happy to reach Uncle Sam, (he came before me)- asked me to join a meeting, will arrange pickup etc. somehow i missed the ride- LUCKY ME
next day again it started out - he never said what it was about who is involved etc.
i said no i dont think i would like to be involved, i was still calculating $1 = 45 Rupees, MCDONALD # 3 combo is Rs 300 oh lala, too expensive( YEAR 2000)
So my kanjusi paid off, see sometimes being lazy helps
It is really funny bro. As far as the $1=45 equation is concerned, you are not alone. I think, many of our Desis go through that phase.
BTW, i lost a good old friend right in first week of landing, we worked @ same company in India(birlasoft), were happy to reach Uncle Sam, (he came before me)- asked me to join a meeting, will arrange pickup etc. somehow i missed the ride- LUCKY ME
next day again it started out - he never said what it was about who is involved etc.
i said no i dont think i would like to be involved, i was still calculating $1 = 45 Rupees, MCDONALD # 3 combo is Rs 300 oh lala, too expensive( YEAR 2000)
So my kanjusi paid off, see sometimes being lazy helps
It is really funny bro. As far as the $1=45 equation is concerned, you are not alone. I think, many of our Desis go through that phase.
more...
user2005
01-23 06:11 PM
I personally know a guy who used Nick's services. Bottomline, his 485 was rejected as Nick sold the same labor to other guys as well. As for him, spend some time on EAD and now he is back on H1. What happens to his VISA number. Returns to the pool? Which pool? Or is it lost as the VISA number was used from last year's quota.
Can they use same LC for more than one I-140?
Trying to understand damage done by LC substitution scams.
Can they use same LC for more than one I-140?
Trying to understand damage done by LC substitution scams.
gauravster
06-04 03:01 PM
As JSB pointed out what you are asking already exists with an EAD, 180 days after filing 485 you can leave your current employer and join a new company as long as it is a same\semilar job. The problem with this same or semilar job is it is a ticking time bomb, the day USCIS decides to go after EAD they can have a restrictive interpretation of same and semilar job and deny your 485 or they can keep sending you employment verification letter rfe every couple of months. I am not being paranioid, for example even though AC 21 clearly states that once 180 days have passed since the 485 has been applied, the employee can join a new job and even if the previous employer has revoked the approved 140 it should not effect the 485 petition, but USCIS is not following this law and blindly sending 485 denial notices to applicants whose approved i140 was revoked by previous employer. Who knows what sort of abuse will USCIS resort to in the future against EAD.
To prevent this we should work towards an administrative fix that once the 485 application is pre adjudicated the applicant should be left alone and not issed any Employment verification letter rfe, or semilar\same job restrictions if they are back logged because of country quota and face multiple year wait.
The EAD/AC21 is still only available to those who are July 07 filers. There are many who have missed the oppurtunity. What many people are asking for is for something such that anyone can change a job after some given time, irrespective of Visa number availability. Even for those with EAD's, you are still restricted to be in the same field. So if you want a career move and do an MBA or acquire new skills to change your career, you cannot do that (unless EAD is for a dependent). If this is not pigeoning people, what is.
To prevent this we should work towards an administrative fix that once the 485 application is pre adjudicated the applicant should be left alone and not issed any Employment verification letter rfe, or semilar\same job restrictions if they are back logged because of country quota and face multiple year wait.
The EAD/AC21 is still only available to those who are July 07 filers. There are many who have missed the oppurtunity. What many people are asking for is for something such that anyone can change a job after some given time, irrespective of Visa number availability. Even for those with EAD's, you are still restricted to be in the same field. So if you want a career move and do an MBA or acquire new skills to change your career, you cannot do that (unless EAD is for a dependent). If this is not pigeoning people, what is.
more...
polapragada
09-24 12:31 AM
Matt_Kelly@Specter.senate.gov ID is bouncing
2010 how do goldfish eggs look
perm2gc
06-26 01:48 PM
nope. The august bulletin which gets released mid july didn't get into our arguements at all. We were specifially talking about july filers and july month.
Yes, i agree that if August bulletin retrogresses than that affects only august filers and not the people eligible to file in july.
my attorney also said same thing..
Yes, i agree that if August bulletin retrogresses than that affects only august filers and not the people eligible to file in july.
my attorney also said same thing..
more...
ita
03-30 11:02 PM
Kancha Ilaya(Sonia appointed ) is being allowed by the Indian Government to lobby with the UN and US Congress so that caste discrimination in India is taken-up by these bodies. (Indians on their own have come a long way in reducing these caste discrimination but alas these people won't want that dying)It shouldn't be any surprise if we see bunch of International articles on India's disgusting caste issues soon.
Rahul Gandhi/Govt of India invites British politician to Amethi on poverty tourism.Putting it in their own words they were trying to show this foreign minister real India (meaning 'sinking India not shining India' or may be they were trying to tell this British guy look we have managed to keep the country at the same state you left it , if anything we took it to another low level).Amethi has been a constituency represented by that family for generations in Priyanka's words. Forget about country they didn't do much good to their own constituency .
This British guy before he left the country said that Mumbai attacks could have happened because India didn't hand over Kashmir to Pak.He also gave a free although unasked advice ,if such future attacks are not to happen India should reconsider it's stance on Kashmir.
British media was surprised to see that Rahul Gandhi touted as future PM by the party and Indian media with equal excitement didn't want to comment on foreign affairs.Mumbai issue or anything else.
Now every country has it's share of problems..be it poverty or something else.Can you imagine U.S politician inviting French/German politician to view America's worst and media giving it huge coverage?Just imagine what would happen then.
Personally I like both Sonia and Rahul, can't doubt their intension of making India better
Rahul Gandhi/Govt of India invites British politician to Amethi on poverty tourism.Putting it in their own words they were trying to show this foreign minister real India (meaning 'sinking India not shining India' or may be they were trying to tell this British guy look we have managed to keep the country at the same state you left it , if anything we took it to another low level).Amethi has been a constituency represented by that family for generations in Priyanka's words. Forget about country they didn't do much good to their own constituency .
This British guy before he left the country said that Mumbai attacks could have happened because India didn't hand over Kashmir to Pak.He also gave a free although unasked advice ,if such future attacks are not to happen India should reconsider it's stance on Kashmir.
British media was surprised to see that Rahul Gandhi touted as future PM by the party and Indian media with equal excitement didn't want to comment on foreign affairs.Mumbai issue or anything else.
Now every country has it's share of problems..be it poverty or something else.Can you imagine U.S politician inviting French/German politician to view America's worst and media giving it huge coverage?Just imagine what would happen then.
Personally I like both Sonia and Rahul, can't doubt their intension of making India better
hair what does goldfish eggs look
immiuser123
07-24 07:00 PM
a) Now you can pay for 80% of the list you mentioned using Internet and e-seva kendras
b) With Right For Information act you can drag people to thier knees if someone asks for bribe.
d) You can have to see the move Die Hard 4
e & f) what about the products here from China
g) Well it depends on the kids
Its not the question of economy alone. When deciding to go back. Its a question about convenience.
a) I don't want to stand in line to pay my Electric/Telephone/House Tax/Income Tax/Train Ticket/Air Ticket/Bus Ticket/Children Admission-donations/Petrol Line/LP Gas Line/Restaurant Line/Chola Bhatura Line/Samosa Line/RTO Office line/Registration line/License Line/Stock Buy line/Stock Sell Line/Bank Deposit Line/Bank Draft Line/Fixed Deposit Line/Kisaan Vikas Patra Line/Registered/Speed post Line/Blue Dart Line/Company registration line/College admission line/College fee line/University degree line/Interview Line/Booking a Car line/Beer Whisky Line/Canteen Line.
Half the country stands in line, the other half manages the line. Neither has any civic sense.
b) I don't want to bribe babus who manage above lines to get ahead in line.
d) I don't want power failures/cooler failures/ac failures/broken roads/or other catastrophic system failures.
e) I dont want fake or mixed eating oil / flour / milk / cheese / butter / peppers / lentils / rice
f) I don't want dangerous chemical fertilizers in my produce (slow killers - massive kidney failure rate in India for past 10 years)
g) I don't want to teach my children dishonesty and tricks of survival/street smartness (in ref to corruption in India) which don't add any value to their personality.
h) The only reason I would wanna go back is for my immediate family and friends. Thats the only thing I miss when it comes to India.
I wouldn't go back and I believe even MK Gandhi himself would'nt leave from Africa for India in todays times.
Also Its the enemy within (corruption) which can cause great harm and we have that kind of enemy now. You can never ever change the attitudes which people carry in India without another revolution.
I am sure I can come up with a huge list of positives too, They will sound very good and will give me a great feeling of fake National Pride.
Now go ahead and kill me for saying all the above.!!
b) With Right For Information act you can drag people to thier knees if someone asks for bribe.
d) You can have to see the move Die Hard 4
e & f) what about the products here from China
g) Well it depends on the kids
Its not the question of economy alone. When deciding to go back. Its a question about convenience.
a) I don't want to stand in line to pay my Electric/Telephone/House Tax/Income Tax/Train Ticket/Air Ticket/Bus Ticket/Children Admission-donations/Petrol Line/LP Gas Line/Restaurant Line/Chola Bhatura Line/Samosa Line/RTO Office line/Registration line/License Line/Stock Buy line/Stock Sell Line/Bank Deposit Line/Bank Draft Line/Fixed Deposit Line/Kisaan Vikas Patra Line/Registered/Speed post Line/Blue Dart Line/Company registration line/College admission line/College fee line/University degree line/Interview Line/Booking a Car line/Beer Whisky Line/Canteen Line.
Half the country stands in line, the other half manages the line. Neither has any civic sense.
b) I don't want to bribe babus who manage above lines to get ahead in line.
d) I don't want power failures/cooler failures/ac failures/broken roads/or other catastrophic system failures.
e) I dont want fake or mixed eating oil / flour / milk / cheese / butter / peppers / lentils / rice
f) I don't want dangerous chemical fertilizers in my produce (slow killers - massive kidney failure rate in India for past 10 years)
g) I don't want to teach my children dishonesty and tricks of survival/street smartness (in ref to corruption in India) which don't add any value to their personality.
h) The only reason I would wanna go back is for my immediate family and friends. Thats the only thing I miss when it comes to India.
I wouldn't go back and I believe even MK Gandhi himself would'nt leave from Africa for India in todays times.
Also Its the enemy within (corruption) which can cause great harm and we have that kind of enemy now. You can never ever change the attitudes which people carry in India without another revolution.
I am sure I can come up with a huge list of positives too, They will sound very good and will give me a great feeling of fake National Pride.
Now go ahead and kill me for saying all the above.!!
more...
lazycis
02-13 02:37 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_lit_030402a.asp
WASHINGTON, D.C.- Immigrant advocates filed a national class action lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) misadministration of a law that provides persons granted asylum the right to live and work in the United States permanently. The suit, filed by the American Immigration Law Foundation and Dorsey & Whitney LLP, seeks to compel the INS to issue all allotted "green cards" fairly on a first-come, first-served basis.
Some 50 named plaintiffs represent tens of thousands of asylees throughout the country. The plaintiffs are all refugees who fled persecution in their home countries and were granted asylum in the United States. Under U.S. law, they may apply to become permanent residents, or so-called green card holders, of the United States. Congress has imposed a cap of 10,000 on the number of asylees who can attain permanent resident status each year.
The lawsuit alleges that the government failed to distribute more than 18,000 green cards in the last eight years while more than 60,000 asylees wait in legal limbo; failed to process applications on a first-come, first-served basis as required by law; and kept thousands of asylees on the wait list who are exempt from the cap. The lawsuit also challenges the government's practice of requiring asylees to obtain a new employment authorization card each year-at a cost that presents a hardship for many families-while they wait for their permanent status.
If 50 asylees managed to get enough money for action, 50 high-skilled immigrants can do it too. Otherwise I'll be greatly dissappointed. Lack of action is a killer. I was shoked to read walking_dude's post that nobody from MI volunteered to be a plaintiff in DL case. If people do not want to help themselves, IV won't be able to help them.
WASHINGTON, D.C.- Immigrant advocates filed a national class action lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) misadministration of a law that provides persons granted asylum the right to live and work in the United States permanently. The suit, filed by the American Immigration Law Foundation and Dorsey & Whitney LLP, seeks to compel the INS to issue all allotted "green cards" fairly on a first-come, first-served basis.
Some 50 named plaintiffs represent tens of thousands of asylees throughout the country. The plaintiffs are all refugees who fled persecution in their home countries and were granted asylum in the United States. Under U.S. law, they may apply to become permanent residents, or so-called green card holders, of the United States. Congress has imposed a cap of 10,000 on the number of asylees who can attain permanent resident status each year.
The lawsuit alleges that the government failed to distribute more than 18,000 green cards in the last eight years while more than 60,000 asylees wait in legal limbo; failed to process applications on a first-come, first-served basis as required by law; and kept thousands of asylees on the wait list who are exempt from the cap. The lawsuit also challenges the government's practice of requiring asylees to obtain a new employment authorization card each year-at a cost that presents a hardship for many families-while they wait for their permanent status.
If 50 asylees managed to get enough money for action, 50 high-skilled immigrants can do it too. Otherwise I'll be greatly dissappointed. Lack of action is a killer. I was shoked to read walking_dude's post that nobody from MI volunteered to be a plaintiff in DL case. If people do not want to help themselves, IV won't be able to help them.
hot does goldfish eggs look
ramus
06-27 09:48 PM
Yes I agree.. But if they don't move date foward then they can't approve those backlog applications.And they don't want to loose 40,000 visas . Now when they made all date current, they can approve all those pending application which are complete and just waiting for date to become current. Now we don't know real number and don't know how long it will take USCIS to do all approvals. But if they approve 40,000 in 2 weeks, I won't be surprised if they make it 'U' like other workers.
But then question still remains why they made all current. They could have just moved it by year or so.. And I am sure they know how many application they can expect in July.. I already saw some where that we have around more then 80,000 approved perm.. All they going to apply.. And what about all whose labor just got approved fro Backlog centers?
Its making everybody confused.. But its not in our hand and we can't do anything. Best thing is to file asap and just hope for best and we are always ready for worst..
Just think if they make date 'U' in middle of july, how many member going to loose money. Each of us spent so much money this month and if nothing happens that we loose all of it.
Iam a little skeptical about the AILA comment, If USCIS had "far more than 40,000 AOS applications that are ready to be aproved", why the heck would they make all the dates current.
Some argue that they wanted to gauge the true demand for GC out there. But in order to do that, they would 1st have to accept the application, go over it, acertain the number of beneficiaries involved etc..
Out of all the versions that I have seen floating around, I find this the most plausable, undoubtedly USCIS has a ton of pending applications, but a lot of these are struck in various sub-procceses (Name check etc), since they do not want to waste the visa numbers like last year, they are inviting additional applications so that if nothing else, easiest of cases go through.
Not to say, what AILA is saying cannot happen, 'coz who knows how these things really work. USCIS is this big black hole...
But then question still remains why they made all current. They could have just moved it by year or so.. And I am sure they know how many application they can expect in July.. I already saw some where that we have around more then 80,000 approved perm.. All they going to apply.. And what about all whose labor just got approved fro Backlog centers?
Its making everybody confused.. But its not in our hand and we can't do anything. Best thing is to file asap and just hope for best and we are always ready for worst..
Just think if they make date 'U' in middle of july, how many member going to loose money. Each of us spent so much money this month and if nothing happens that we loose all of it.
Iam a little skeptical about the AILA comment, If USCIS had "far more than 40,000 AOS applications that are ready to be aproved", why the heck would they make all the dates current.
Some argue that they wanted to gauge the true demand for GC out there. But in order to do that, they would 1st have to accept the application, go over it, acertain the number of beneficiaries involved etc..
Out of all the versions that I have seen floating around, I find this the most plausable, undoubtedly USCIS has a ton of pending applications, but a lot of these are struck in various sub-procceses (Name check etc), since they do not want to waste the visa numbers like last year, they are inviting additional applications so that if nothing else, easiest of cases go through.
Not to say, what AILA is saying cannot happen, 'coz who knows how these things really work. USCIS is this big black hole...
more...
house what do goldfish eggs look
villamonte6100
02-18 11:17 AM
(1) There was no shortage of laypeople and even attorneys who asserted that "USCIS isn't doing anything wrong they are just following the law" when it came to FBI name checks. Fortunately for all of us sharper legal brains and sharper judges prevailed, and brought us to this happy day.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
tattoo hair what do goldfish eggs
srini1976
09-23 06:23 PM
The only missing information to give an almost 90% accurate prediction of the visa bulletin movement are
1. Will DOS do spillover every quarter or only once every year?
2. What would be the number of eb2 and eb1 visa demand from ROW?
the answer to question 2 can be obtained by getting the number of pending PERM Eb2 petitions with DOL, if we get the answer to question 1 from DOS then we can predict the visa bulletin with almost 90% + accuracy.
I don’t think DOS will do a quarter spillover. If DOS does not do a quarter spillover then it will disastrous for EB2 India because there will be a either a repeat of August 2008 visa bulletin where they might move the visa bulletin up to 2006 or 2007 and basically they will give a visa to whoever irrespective of PD which means people with 2004 and 2005 might get left behind again while people from 2007 and 2007 might get GC or an even more disastrous situation might be that if DOL releases a ton of pending EB2 ROW perm applications they have been holding up for over an year in June-July-august 2010 time then DOS might not do a spillover at all for Eb2 India.
The key difference compared to last year is Pre-Adjudication and improved communication between DOS and USCIS.
If not all, Recent spate of approvals for EB 2 - I (based on spill over) - in first few weeks of September 2009 is itself a proof of their improved service (& Pre-Adjudication)
Most likely spill over should happen Quarterly. If not I agree with you - they can make everyone current in the last Quarter and approve irrespective of Priority Date. But its least likely to happen this year. But you never know about USCIS.
1. Will DOS do spillover every quarter or only once every year?
2. What would be the number of eb2 and eb1 visa demand from ROW?
the answer to question 2 can be obtained by getting the number of pending PERM Eb2 petitions with DOL, if we get the answer to question 1 from DOS then we can predict the visa bulletin with almost 90% + accuracy.
I don’t think DOS will do a quarter spillover. If DOS does not do a quarter spillover then it will disastrous for EB2 India because there will be a either a repeat of August 2008 visa bulletin where they might move the visa bulletin up to 2006 or 2007 and basically they will give a visa to whoever irrespective of PD which means people with 2004 and 2005 might get left behind again while people from 2007 and 2007 might get GC or an even more disastrous situation might be that if DOL releases a ton of pending EB2 ROW perm applications they have been holding up for over an year in June-July-august 2010 time then DOS might not do a spillover at all for Eb2 India.
The key difference compared to last year is Pre-Adjudication and improved communication between DOS and USCIS.
If not all, Recent spate of approvals for EB 2 - I (based on spill over) - in first few weeks of September 2009 is itself a proof of their improved service (& Pre-Adjudication)
Most likely spill over should happen Quarterly. If not I agree with you - they can make everyone current in the last Quarter and approve irrespective of Priority Date. But its least likely to happen this year. But you never know about USCIS.
more...
pictures how do goldfish eggs look
thomachan72
09-04 10:59 AM
This is not contributing to anything. I dont think oposing parties in this discussion will ever come to an agreement so what is the purpose of carrying on. Please close this and lets concentrate on something else.
dresses and Goldfish New Arrivals.
BharatPremi
09-24 12:06 PM
I think your analysis considers EB1(ROW)+EB2(ROW) spill over to EB3(ROW) that is not true,
EB1 Overflow ---> EB2
EB2 Overflow ---> EB2(I)+EB China
That means as per your calculation, it would be 19,282 considering 0 EB1 and EB2 filled in 2010.
As i said in my previous posts EB2 would be May 2006 by end of this year for sure.
Best case scenario considering more than 30K spill over it would be end of 2006.
You are also calculating spillover as of today with the pending cases, but the spill over happens only in Last quarter of 2010. There would be some if not more EB1+EB2 ROW applicants.
One thing for spillover is sure and that is it is happening at the end of a year. If we read the Visa bulletin 2 methods of spillover can be derived.
1) Spillover within preference first and then to country
Example: additional numbers of EB2- I go to EB2-M/C and after that any left ones go to
EB3 category
2) Spillover within contry first
Example: EB2-I - any extra numbers go to EB3-I and still left go to "unused" ready to be used by other oversubscribed country.
Now USCIS may be doing spillover by any of these methods or combination. I think none of us have exact proof which way USCIS does spillover.
In analysis we need to assume one or other path and that is what I did.
Yes, current new influx of applications is a major item to factor in but I was working on the data what USCIS published and it has not published current influx. Every month calculations get changed.
EB1 Overflow ---> EB2
EB2 Overflow ---> EB2(I)+EB China
That means as per your calculation, it would be 19,282 considering 0 EB1 and EB2 filled in 2010.
As i said in my previous posts EB2 would be May 2006 by end of this year for sure.
Best case scenario considering more than 30K spill over it would be end of 2006.
You are also calculating spillover as of today with the pending cases, but the spill over happens only in Last quarter of 2010. There would be some if not more EB1+EB2 ROW applicants.
One thing for spillover is sure and that is it is happening at the end of a year. If we read the Visa bulletin 2 methods of spillover can be derived.
1) Spillover within preference first and then to country
Example: additional numbers of EB2- I go to EB2-M/C and after that any left ones go to
EB3 category
2) Spillover within contry first
Example: EB2-I - any extra numbers go to EB3-I and still left go to "unused" ready to be used by other oversubscribed country.
Now USCIS may be doing spillover by any of these methods or combination. I think none of us have exact proof which way USCIS does spillover.
In analysis we need to assume one or other path and that is what I did.
Yes, current new influx of applications is a major item to factor in but I was working on the data what USCIS published and it has not published current influx. Every month calculations get changed.
more...
makeup goldfish eggs look like.
ivar
01-13 04:34 PM
Most important of all There are people (Legal) immigrants who have bought house recently and will have to sell adding more pain to the real estate market.
AILA should. I heard a lots of para legal staffs are already lost their jobs. Because there were less H1, and GC filings. Actually there is a huge economy based on immigration. If USCIS just changes the rules as they want that would affect lots of US citizens not just few immigrants.
Lets see which businesses/people are making money out of immigration related activities.
1) Attorney
2) Paralegal staff
3) Shipping guys (usps, fedex, etc)
4) Airlines (because immigrant workers has to visit their home country periodically)
5) Consulate
6) USCIS
7) Contractors in USCIS
8) Port of Entry/customs staffs
9) Notaries
10) Doctors/hospitals for getting medical clearance for 485, etc
11) Passport photo shops
12) Airport staffs
13) ....
AILA should. I heard a lots of para legal staffs are already lost their jobs. Because there were less H1, and GC filings. Actually there is a huge economy based on immigration. If USCIS just changes the rules as they want that would affect lots of US citizens not just few immigrants.
Lets see which businesses/people are making money out of immigration related activities.
1) Attorney
2) Paralegal staff
3) Shipping guys (usps, fedex, etc)
4) Airlines (because immigrant workers has to visit their home country periodically)
5) Consulate
6) USCIS
7) Contractors in USCIS
8) Port of Entry/customs staffs
9) Notaries
10) Doctors/hospitals for getting medical clearance for 485, etc
11) Passport photo shops
12) Airport staffs
13) ....
girlfriend goldfish eggs look like.
apnair2002
04-29 09:26 AM
04/29/2007: Elimination of Substitution of Aliens for the Certified Labor Certification Applications
As we stated earlier, the OMB had 90 days to make a decision on this DOL Final Rule. It was submitted on 01/26/2007 and the OMB cleared on 04/27/2007, just immediately prior to expiration of 90 days.
This final rule will not go into effect until it is published by the DOL in the federal register. Record reflects that this final rule will not be published in the federal register, Monday, 04/30/2007. We have yet to see what changes to the proposed version of the rule the DOL made in the final rule. However, it is certain that this rule will not go into effect on Monday, 04/30/2007, and there may still be some actions the employers can make before it is published in the federal register.
Pending Labor Certification Cases: PERM rule does not allow any amendments and no substitution of alien beneficiary available until the PERM application is certified. By the time PERM is approved, it may be too late to initiate the substitution. However, the cases which are pending at the BECs are different. The beneficiaries can be substituted inasmuch as the job order and the BEC supervised recruitment has yet to be initiated. At this time, the amendment of the BEC application does not require a paper request and e-mail or even phone call request followed by fax will work to substitute the alien. Under the final rule which will go into effect soon, the labor certification applications at the stage of DOL can survive only if the substitution has been approved at the time of release of the final rule. Accordingly, the employers can contact the BECs tomorrow, Monday, to amend the pending ETA 705 and alien beneficiary over the phone, via e-mail, followed by the phone calls and fax or straightforwardedly via fax. CAVEAT: If substitution is denied and original beneficiary ETA 750 is denied for the reason that there is no beneficiary, the employer can lose everything!!
Certified Labor Certification Cases: These cases will not be able to survive unless the I-140 petition is quickly filed on Monday substituting the alien beneficiary. The earliest filing date will be "Tuesday" since overnight delivery has to reach the Service Centers. Still worth trying. Once it is "filed," it will be safe. There remain a host of issues which will have to be resolved by the USCIS as to the consequences of the denial of these substitution I-140 petitions on issues other than alien beneficiaries qualifications such as the employer's financial ability to pay the proffered wage, etc. Obviously, the denial becomes a "final" action, the cases on appeal to the AAO will continue to remain outside the parameter of the elimination rule. Another question is the effect of motion to reopen of denial of substitution I-140 petitions. There is some chance that the USCIS may decide that once the motion is granted and I-140 petition is approved, the DOL's final rule of elimination of substitution will not affect the case. What if the employer refiles the substitution I-140 petitions? The chances of these cases will remail slim or nil. Since it will be considred a "new" filing of substitution I-140 petition, the USCIS may rule that such filing will be subject to the DOL's substitution elimination final rule. There will be other issues which fall under the jurisdiction of the USCIS rather than DOL as related to the interpretation of the substitution I-140 petitions. The USCIS is scheduled to initiate this rule making process sooner or later. Please stay tuned.
Impact on the Retention of Priority Date: The rule of retention of priority date is governed not by the DOL but by the USCIS. Under the USCIS rule, the priority date of the labor certification application is not retained until I-140 petition is "approved." Accordingly, if the decision of the denial of the substitution I-140 becomes final on appeal, the substituting alien will not be able to retain the priority. Neither the original beneficiary can retain the priority date unless the alien beneficiary substition I-140 petition was filed after the I-140 had been approved for the original beneficiary.
Impact on the 7th-Year H-1B Extension: Until the substitution I-140 is denied and becomes final on appeal, the substitutiing alien will be able to continuously extend the H-1B status in one-year increment, but the substituted alien will not be able to extend the 7th-year H-1B status based on the substituted labor certification application. Once the decision of denial becomes final, the substituting alien will not be able to extend the H-1B status after that time, but the validity of the approved 7th-year H-1B status will remain valid until the expiration date.
Impact on the 245(i) Benefits: Grandfathering of the 245(i) benefits cannot be transferred to other aliens and substituting aliens cannot take over the 245(i) benefits unless the substitution was filed before April 30, 2001. Once the grandfathering is attached, it remains valid unless "not approveable at the time of labor certification application filing" is found. Accordingly, the denial of substitution I-140 petition on behalf of the substituting alien will have no affect on the original beneficiary's retention of the 245(i) benefits.
Well, let's wait and see the text of the soon-to-be published final rule.
As we stated earlier, the OMB had 90 days to make a decision on this DOL Final Rule. It was submitted on 01/26/2007 and the OMB cleared on 04/27/2007, just immediately prior to expiration of 90 days.
This final rule will not go into effect until it is published by the DOL in the federal register. Record reflects that this final rule will not be published in the federal register, Monday, 04/30/2007. We have yet to see what changes to the proposed version of the rule the DOL made in the final rule. However, it is certain that this rule will not go into effect on Monday, 04/30/2007, and there may still be some actions the employers can make before it is published in the federal register.
Pending Labor Certification Cases: PERM rule does not allow any amendments and no substitution of alien beneficiary available until the PERM application is certified. By the time PERM is approved, it may be too late to initiate the substitution. However, the cases which are pending at the BECs are different. The beneficiaries can be substituted inasmuch as the job order and the BEC supervised recruitment has yet to be initiated. At this time, the amendment of the BEC application does not require a paper request and e-mail or even phone call request followed by fax will work to substitute the alien. Under the final rule which will go into effect soon, the labor certification applications at the stage of DOL can survive only if the substitution has been approved at the time of release of the final rule. Accordingly, the employers can contact the BECs tomorrow, Monday, to amend the pending ETA 705 and alien beneficiary over the phone, via e-mail, followed by the phone calls and fax or straightforwardedly via fax. CAVEAT: If substitution is denied and original beneficiary ETA 750 is denied for the reason that there is no beneficiary, the employer can lose everything!!
Certified Labor Certification Cases: These cases will not be able to survive unless the I-140 petition is quickly filed on Monday substituting the alien beneficiary. The earliest filing date will be "Tuesday" since overnight delivery has to reach the Service Centers. Still worth trying. Once it is "filed," it will be safe. There remain a host of issues which will have to be resolved by the USCIS as to the consequences of the denial of these substitution I-140 petitions on issues other than alien beneficiaries qualifications such as the employer's financial ability to pay the proffered wage, etc. Obviously, the denial becomes a "final" action, the cases on appeal to the AAO will continue to remain outside the parameter of the elimination rule. Another question is the effect of motion to reopen of denial of substitution I-140 petitions. There is some chance that the USCIS may decide that once the motion is granted and I-140 petition is approved, the DOL's final rule of elimination of substitution will not affect the case. What if the employer refiles the substitution I-140 petitions? The chances of these cases will remail slim or nil. Since it will be considred a "new" filing of substitution I-140 petition, the USCIS may rule that such filing will be subject to the DOL's substitution elimination final rule. There will be other issues which fall under the jurisdiction of the USCIS rather than DOL as related to the interpretation of the substitution I-140 petitions. The USCIS is scheduled to initiate this rule making process sooner or later. Please stay tuned.
Impact on the Retention of Priority Date: The rule of retention of priority date is governed not by the DOL but by the USCIS. Under the USCIS rule, the priority date of the labor certification application is not retained until I-140 petition is "approved." Accordingly, if the decision of the denial of the substitution I-140 becomes final on appeal, the substituting alien will not be able to retain the priority. Neither the original beneficiary can retain the priority date unless the alien beneficiary substition I-140 petition was filed after the I-140 had been approved for the original beneficiary.
Impact on the 7th-Year H-1B Extension: Until the substitution I-140 is denied and becomes final on appeal, the substitutiing alien will be able to continuously extend the H-1B status in one-year increment, but the substituted alien will not be able to extend the 7th-year H-1B status based on the substituted labor certification application. Once the decision of denial becomes final, the substituting alien will not be able to extend the H-1B status after that time, but the validity of the approved 7th-year H-1B status will remain valid until the expiration date.
Impact on the 245(i) Benefits: Grandfathering of the 245(i) benefits cannot be transferred to other aliens and substituting aliens cannot take over the 245(i) benefits unless the substitution was filed before April 30, 2001. Once the grandfathering is attached, it remains valid unless "not approveable at the time of labor certification application filing" is found. Accordingly, the denial of substitution I-140 petition on behalf of the substituting alien will have no affect on the original beneficiary's retention of the 245(i) benefits.
Well, let's wait and see the text of the soon-to-be published final rule.
hairstyles 2011 fantail goldfish eggs
Macaca
07-03 09:50 PM
age out situations for children too ....I think that affects lot of people too..I am single and dont have kids :D
I don't know about it. Anyone with details should post summary.
I think it is not relevent for EAD/AP but we can use it when we need it
I don't know about it. Anyone with details should post summary.
I think it is not relevent for EAD/AP but we can use it when we need it
rkg000
09-05 08:42 PM
Yo breddy2000, nobody is calling you names man, but you are getting personal. Is YSR your father ?????.
gc28262
09-04 10:16 AM
IV admins, Chandu,
Please delete this thread or move this away from the main page.
This thread is a good fodder for antis.
Please delete this thread or move this away from the main page.
This thread is a good fodder for antis.