vdlrao
07-25 07:01 PM
I still believe in EB2 will try to catch up current by next October.
wallpaper Kristen Stewart Faces New Love
sounakc
08-13 05:23 PM
riends need ur suggestion/help regarding the following matter:
filed my I-485 in july 07. submitted my G325A form. didnt filed for my wifes AOS. since she was in india and we were mutually drifting apart. only mentioned her name in the G325A form, since she was still legally my wife.
Now the official relief came as divorce this month.
my question is do i need to send USCIS an updated G325A mentioning about my divorce? (along with a divorce certificate)
will it create any problem when I try to include my next better half in future.
filed my I-485 in july 07. submitted my G325A form. didnt filed for my wifes AOS. since she was in india and we were mutually drifting apart. only mentioned her name in the G325A form, since she was still legally my wife.
Now the official relief came as divorce this month.
my question is do i need to send USCIS an updated G325A mentioning about my divorce? (along with a divorce certificate)
will it create any problem when I try to include my next better half in future.
GCapplicant
01-22 02:26 PM
Recently , Immi officers are randomly dashing thru H1B sponsor companies ,where any H1B petitions have gone thru or waiting for renewal. NJ -
So guess its getting tougher - They have set of questions - from POEntry date with eaxct details of the petitioner.
How many H1's the company has issued , salary matching with Tax copies.
Guess - if the company has no base or structure , the so called employees name inot there physically or the whereabouts .
This happened today a checking in NJ. All the papers should be in hand
Its getting tougher
So guess its getting tougher - They have set of questions - from POEntry date with eaxct details of the petitioner.
How many H1's the company has issued , salary matching with Tax copies.
Guess - if the company has no base or structure , the so called employees name inot there physically or the whereabouts .
This happened today a checking in NJ. All the papers should be in hand
Its getting tougher
2011 of Kristen Stewart (Bella
samay
07-15 05:19 PM
Hi there,
Here is my situation, any help to resolve this is appreciated.
- My self (primary) & my wife's(derivative) I-485's (PD June 2002) were filed in March 2007.
- My I-485 was approved in July 2007, my wife's was pending due to NC.
- My wife's employer filed PERM (PD June 2007) & then filed I-140 in March 2008.
- We recently contacted NSC regarding my wife's case status, we received a letter from them stating that, her I485 is waiting for I-140 to get approved.
They linked her new I-140 to her pending I-485 that was filed as derivative.Is this USCIS error?.How to correct this error and have them consider her I-485 application as a derivative application?.
Thanks for your help.
[COLOR="Blue"]Your attorney should get in touch with the USCIS.This situation can be sorted out with informing the USCIS. In case you require any assistance please get in touch with me.
Here is my situation, any help to resolve this is appreciated.
- My self (primary) & my wife's(derivative) I-485's (PD June 2002) were filed in March 2007.
- My I-485 was approved in July 2007, my wife's was pending due to NC.
- My wife's employer filed PERM (PD June 2007) & then filed I-140 in March 2008.
- We recently contacted NSC regarding my wife's case status, we received a letter from them stating that, her I485 is waiting for I-140 to get approved.
They linked her new I-140 to her pending I-485 that was filed as derivative.Is this USCIS error?.How to correct this error and have them consider her I-485 application as a derivative application?.
Thanks for your help.
[COLOR="Blue"]Your attorney should get in touch with the USCIS.This situation can be sorted out with informing the USCIS. In case you require any assistance please get in touch with me.
more...
roseball
01-13 04:43 PM
Is this some thing needs to pass or in proposal or already effected since the date they published on the website?
I have not ready the doc.
This is neither a proposal nor a bill that needs to go through the process. Its a memo to the USCIS service centers providing clarity on whats an employer-employee relationship means for a H1 petition to be considered for approval. The memo claims there was no clarity on what constitutes a fair employer-employee relationship and provides guidance to the USCIS service centers to follow the memo in processing all H1 applications. So technically, I would assume it is effective on the date it was released.
I have not ready the doc.
This is neither a proposal nor a bill that needs to go through the process. Its a memo to the USCIS service centers providing clarity on whats an employer-employee relationship means for a H1 petition to be considered for approval. The memo claims there was no clarity on what constitutes a fair employer-employee relationship and provides guidance to the USCIS service centers to follow the memo in processing all H1 applications. So technically, I would assume it is effective on the date it was released.
OLDMONK
07-24 05:54 PM
WOW what can I say? Well spoken!! In a lot of points, I agree with you.
But then let me ask you something - have you been investing back home? Have you been building a house back home? Have you been putting money in a bank account/ shares back home?
Waiting for your answer
BLIB
I do send money because I have a dialysis patient at home for 6 years now. and at this time I don't want to point to the healthcare system at all, but my best wishes that you don't have to go there.
I do have properties and business properties in India from before I came to US. I don't want to make this personal by naming the IT businesses I sold but am sure if you are from 90's and from India you are aware of those names.
I have sold those one by one, and that is another line buddy. Capital Assets Line. IT Enquiry Lines, Company liquidation issues (specially if you were a LTD. company), Commerical Property Tribunals, Service Tax lines, State Tax Issues, Central Sales Tax issues. And god forbid if there is a lawsuit filed.
And yes I am in GC line for 8 years and i dont mind another 2-3 years. This is the Last line hopefully other than immigration line at India every year. (which is painful for Indian Citizens) but easy for PIO's and Non Citizens.
But then let me ask you something - have you been investing back home? Have you been building a house back home? Have you been putting money in a bank account/ shares back home?
Waiting for your answer
BLIB
I do send money because I have a dialysis patient at home for 6 years now. and at this time I don't want to point to the healthcare system at all, but my best wishes that you don't have to go there.
I do have properties and business properties in India from before I came to US. I don't want to make this personal by naming the IT businesses I sold but am sure if you are from 90's and from India you are aware of those names.
I have sold those one by one, and that is another line buddy. Capital Assets Line. IT Enquiry Lines, Company liquidation issues (specially if you were a LTD. company), Commerical Property Tribunals, Service Tax lines, State Tax Issues, Central Sales Tax issues. And god forbid if there is a lawsuit filed.
And yes I am in GC line for 8 years and i dont mind another 2-3 years. This is the Last line hopefully other than immigration line at India every year. (which is painful for Indian Citizens) but easy for PIO's and Non Citizens.
more...
_TrueFacts
09-04 03:26 PM
apt29,
It is a countries effective system that drives people and in turn it is, it's people drive that the Country back to modernization.
What comes in is what goes back.
And in India. We don't have a system...except for reservations. and people like YSR use it their fullest advantage.
It is a countries effective system that drives people and in turn it is, it's people drive that the Country back to modernization.
What comes in is what goes back.
And in India. We don't have a system...except for reservations. and people like YSR use it their fullest advantage.
2010 But Actress Kristen Stewart
mbahunting
09-24 04:41 PM
What are the chances of someone like me with a PD of Nov 06 and who did not file 485 in 07. Will I be able to file 485 anytime soon? I am wondering how many of people like me are waiting - that may impact some of our date calculations based on the 485 numbers released by USCIS? Any insights?
more...
msp1976
02-13 02:50 PM
I don't think so. 7% limit has been there for a very long time. Unused visas from prior years for ac21 purposes were still subject to 7% in current year. The 7% rule was unchanged.
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
Refer to this text.....
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/8usc/www/t8-12-II-I-1152.html#_a_
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, Sec. 1152.
Look at paragraph a(5)
(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants
(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per country
limitation if additional visas available
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1153(b) of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e) of this section
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) of this section applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(b) of this title consistent with subsection (e) of this section (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying subsection (e) of this section all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 1153(b) of this title.
This is the section that allows for the 7% cap to be violated in case additional visas are available.................
This is the one many anti immigrant people tried to get removed again and again......
USCIS did not do anything wrong in 2005 nor in 2006.....By allocating additional visas to India/China USCIS did not do anything wrong...You can sue them ....USCIS has good grounds to defend their position.....You would not get anywhere...
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
Refer to this text.....
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/8usc/www/t8-12-II-I-1152.html#_a_
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, Sec. 1152.
Look at paragraph a(5)
(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants
(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per country
limitation if additional visas available
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1153(b) of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e) of this section
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) of this section applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(b) of this title consistent with subsection (e) of this section (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying subsection (e) of this section all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 1153(b) of this title.
This is the section that allows for the 7% cap to be violated in case additional visas are available.................
This is the one many anti immigrant people tried to get removed again and again......
USCIS did not do anything wrong in 2005 nor in 2006.....By allocating additional visas to India/China USCIS did not do anything wrong...You can sue them ....USCIS has good grounds to defend their position.....You would not get anywhere...
hair Kristen Stewart says she can#39;t
gc_check
07-04 12:38 PM
Which of the above are not needed for dependents?
For my spouse, I've to take care of all the fees for I-485 / I-765 / I-131 / Biometric ( $325 + $180 + $170 + $ 70). For me, I've to take care only I-131 Fees ( $170). The Company Pays the fees only for my I-485 and I-765 and also take care of the Attorney Fees for both of us. They also reimburse the Medical Expenses, if the insurance does not cover the charges, only for Employee/ Primary applicant. For all dependents it is my responsibility. This is not the same will all the employers. I've friends, where all the fees are covered by the company.
For my spouse, I've to take care of all the fees for I-485 / I-765 / I-131 / Biometric ( $325 + $180 + $170 + $ 70). For me, I've to take care only I-131 Fees ( $170). The Company Pays the fees only for my I-485 and I-765 and also take care of the Attorney Fees for both of us. They also reimburse the Medical Expenses, if the insurance does not cover the charges, only for Employee/ Primary applicant. For all dependents it is my responsibility. This is not the same will all the employers. I've friends, where all the fees are covered by the company.
more...
alisa
02-18 11:49 PM
I think we can make some very credible and good arguments for ourselves.
a) The changing demographics require an increased level of immigration. It is upto this country to decide if it wants semi-skilled immigrants (Indian cooks and gardeners) and their siblings/parents, or high-skilled immigrants.
b) It is not really the smartest thing in the world to bring people here from foreign lands, let them work here in high-tech fields, and then send them back after 6-10 years so that they can compete against Americans from OUTSIDE America.
c) A lot of EB-based immigrants have been to American colleges and have graduate degrees. Again, see (b) above. Not the brightest idea to have this American-educated and trained high-skilled manpower forced to go back to India and China, the two main US competitors.
Atleast, not if you are America.
Bottomline is this. If there have been abuses of the system, and any system will be abused, then those need to be fixed. If there are loopholes, they need to be plugged (and people will come up with more loopholes.) But the USCIS should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Either this country values high-skilled immigrants, or it doesn't. The high-skilled immigrants need to know this, so that they can make decisions in their life. The incompetence of USCIS can't be the instrument of public policy making.
a) The changing demographics require an increased level of immigration. It is upto this country to decide if it wants semi-skilled immigrants (Indian cooks and gardeners) and their siblings/parents, or high-skilled immigrants.
b) It is not really the smartest thing in the world to bring people here from foreign lands, let them work here in high-tech fields, and then send them back after 6-10 years so that they can compete against Americans from OUTSIDE America.
c) A lot of EB-based immigrants have been to American colleges and have graduate degrees. Again, see (b) above. Not the brightest idea to have this American-educated and trained high-skilled manpower forced to go back to India and China, the two main US competitors.
Atleast, not if you are America.
Bottomline is this. If there have been abuses of the system, and any system will be abused, then those need to be fixed. If there are loopholes, they need to be plugged (and people will come up with more loopholes.) But the USCIS should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Either this country values high-skilled immigrants, or it doesn't. The high-skilled immigrants need to know this, so that they can make decisions in their life. The incompetence of USCIS can't be the instrument of public policy making.
hot Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart)
gc_on_demand
09-24 12:24 PM
This analysis is really excellent, how far do you foresee the EB2-I date going this year. Is there any hope for new people to file 485 this year? People who missed Jul 07 have waited long and can wait till next Sep in the hope that we will be able to file 485 this year.
Spill will be around 30k for Eb2 and that will clear till mid 2006. by Sep 2010. In Sep 2011 you should be able to file for 485.
there is no law that says to move date to accept new applications. If DOS makes date current and people have all data visible now will take USCIS to court for not approving cases. What I have learnt that USCIS is considering publishing rule ( Via Rule making process ) in dec 2009 to halt concurrent filling for I 140 and 485 and give chance to pre register for 485. so in Spiring of 2010 we may be able to pre file 485. which may / may not give benefit of AC 21 . EAD is always admin job so they can give out EAD and AP along with pre filling.
Spill will be around 30k for Eb2 and that will clear till mid 2006. by Sep 2010. In Sep 2011 you should be able to file for 485.
there is no law that says to move date to accept new applications. If DOS makes date current and people have all data visible now will take USCIS to court for not approving cases. What I have learnt that USCIS is considering publishing rule ( Via Rule making process ) in dec 2009 to halt concurrent filling for I 140 and 485 and give chance to pre register for 485. so in Spiring of 2010 we may be able to pre file 485. which may / may not give benefit of AC 21 . EAD is always admin job so they can give out EAD and AP along with pre filling.
more...
house Pantene. Making babies:
another one
09-23 06:17 PM
few suggestions:
1. can we add reference to a recent Greenspan wallstreet journal interview in which he said this could be the best immediate solution for increasing home sales.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/greenspans-solution/84056/
2. mention somewhere in proposal that person should be employed with a US corp for something like at least > x years (to make it more real)
1. can we add reference to a recent Greenspan wallstreet journal interview in which he said this could be the best immediate solution for increasing home sales.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/greenspans-solution/84056/
2. mention somewhere in proposal that person should be employed with a US corp for something like at least > x years (to make it more real)
tattoo KRISTEN STEWART. Bella
doknek
07-17 01:33 PM
If PD moves to last quarter of 2007 within a year, then there would be no candidates (EB2), since all will still be stuck in PERM audits which will take 6-12 more months to clear + I-140 processing time.
So, they move PD dates faster but freeze PERM apps. I am confused:confused: Any insights?
So, they move PD dates faster but freeze PERM apps. I am confused:confused: Any insights?
more...
pictures Kissing Kristen Stewart in
chi_shark
09-23 01:10 PM
this summary of the crisis is wrong... in fact *this* is unfair to ply people with
incorrect versions of news... nearing to lies... if intentional... the lack of liquidity stems from the fact that subprime borrowers are finding it hard to keep payments going after their payments reset on ARMs. CDOs that were based on mortgages were rated highly by rating agencies based on precedent of earlier years started losing buyers because payments were not coming through (ie default) and that led to lack of buyers and then there was a general exit from the CDO market... investment banks (like lehman) are allowed by fed regulators to classify certain assets as investments and hence not re-evaluate value them (or mark them to market) every once in a while... however, in light of actual default on some assets and ensuing lack of market interest, they started writing down asset values... thats when they collapsed... there was no way people would have come back in 30 years to buy an asset for which the underlying payments had already stopped...
hope this sets the facts straight or at least gives a different point of view for people to chew on.
The 700Bn or whatever the final number is not entirely a drain.....
the thing with all these exotic securities is not that they are completely worthless but that there is no market for these right now and hence are illiquid - so if someone had the ability to keep these securities for a long term (say 30 years - since most mortgages are for 30 years) on their balance sheet - they may not lose as much money as they would if they tried to liquidate these investments in the short term.
Financial Institutions typically borrow short term to invest in long term investments and keep renewing the short term borrowings - since the underlying investment has become illiquid - it has become difficult to raise financing against it. the govt, howver, can take a long term view and be patient....who knows.....in the end - the Govt may actually come out with positive cash flow at the end of all this mess. So, the bail-out plan may not be as bad an idea as media is portraying it to be.........in short-term - it does take US into further indebtedness.
I already have a GC - so this debate does not impact me personally - but this is against the basic principals of natural justice.......GC applicants were placed into certain EB categories based on job descriptions and qualifications and then within queues assigned priority dates based on certain logic and are currently being approved based on PD and country quotas..........all these rules were known and published prior to companies and people applying for these GCs.....
No matter what the incremental benefit is, I think its blatantly unfair (like it was blatantly unfair to push some people to labor backlog centers and approving people with later PDs first) to change the rules of engagement and prioritization midway through the process and give preference to someone based on an ability to invest certain $$s in an house.......buying a house is a commercial and lifestyle decision........should not be a precursor to a USCIS adjudication.......
keep the red dots coming folks!
incorrect versions of news... nearing to lies... if intentional... the lack of liquidity stems from the fact that subprime borrowers are finding it hard to keep payments going after their payments reset on ARMs. CDOs that were based on mortgages were rated highly by rating agencies based on precedent of earlier years started losing buyers because payments were not coming through (ie default) and that led to lack of buyers and then there was a general exit from the CDO market... investment banks (like lehman) are allowed by fed regulators to classify certain assets as investments and hence not re-evaluate value them (or mark them to market) every once in a while... however, in light of actual default on some assets and ensuing lack of market interest, they started writing down asset values... thats when they collapsed... there was no way people would have come back in 30 years to buy an asset for which the underlying payments had already stopped...
hope this sets the facts straight or at least gives a different point of view for people to chew on.
The 700Bn or whatever the final number is not entirely a drain.....
the thing with all these exotic securities is not that they are completely worthless but that there is no market for these right now and hence are illiquid - so if someone had the ability to keep these securities for a long term (say 30 years - since most mortgages are for 30 years) on their balance sheet - they may not lose as much money as they would if they tried to liquidate these investments in the short term.
Financial Institutions typically borrow short term to invest in long term investments and keep renewing the short term borrowings - since the underlying investment has become illiquid - it has become difficult to raise financing against it. the govt, howver, can take a long term view and be patient....who knows.....in the end - the Govt may actually come out with positive cash flow at the end of all this mess. So, the bail-out plan may not be as bad an idea as media is portraying it to be.........in short-term - it does take US into further indebtedness.
I already have a GC - so this debate does not impact me personally - but this is against the basic principals of natural justice.......GC applicants were placed into certain EB categories based on job descriptions and qualifications and then within queues assigned priority dates based on certain logic and are currently being approved based on PD and country quotas..........all these rules were known and published prior to companies and people applying for these GCs.....
No matter what the incremental benefit is, I think its blatantly unfair (like it was blatantly unfair to push some people to labor backlog centers and approving people with later PDs first) to change the rules of engagement and prioritization midway through the process and give preference to someone based on an ability to invest certain $$s in an house.......buying a house is a commercial and lifestyle decision........should not be a precursor to a USCIS adjudication.......
keep the red dots coming folks!
dresses Kristen Stewart plays Bella,
alisa
02-13 01:44 PM
Are you suggesting that IV's efforts would increase the wait times for ROW?
What incentive does ROW have to work with IV then?
It has been repeated 'Ad Nauseam' times. IVs agenda includes all of these -
1) Increasing GC numbers
2) Recapturing numbers and instituting permanent Rollover mechanisms
3) Eliminate country quotas.
IV understands that removing just the country quota will impact ROW badly if visa numbers are not increased in tandem. Hence you always see the three points being proposed together. These 3 have to go together. A compromise between ROW and oversubscribed countries.
But some ROW members keep trying to split the movement by opposing removal of country quotas ( which is point 2 in IV agenda) at every possible opportunity. Real way to build a coalition is through compromise. And in a compromise you can't get all you want. Don't expect the majority to heed all your demands.
Be a little appreciative of the sufferings of others. If you think a little extra time you need to spend in the queue is turning you so angry, what goes in the mind of a person who has to spend twice or thrice as much time in the same queue, for no fault of his/hers?
Don't BS on 'diversity'. There is already a 'diversity visa' which Indians & Chinese cannot use. Want to come under diversity? Apply in the lottery. Be a little humane and think about the suffering of others. May be you'll see the light. You are not going to win many friends by alleging "an agenda by some country". It's preposturous, laughable and Dobbsian ( like Lou Dobbs alleged "invasion by Mexicans")
What incentive does ROW have to work with IV then?
It has been repeated 'Ad Nauseam' times. IVs agenda includes all of these -
1) Increasing GC numbers
2) Recapturing numbers and instituting permanent Rollover mechanisms
3) Eliminate country quotas.
IV understands that removing just the country quota will impact ROW badly if visa numbers are not increased in tandem. Hence you always see the three points being proposed together. These 3 have to go together. A compromise between ROW and oversubscribed countries.
But some ROW members keep trying to split the movement by opposing removal of country quotas ( which is point 2 in IV agenda) at every possible opportunity. Real way to build a coalition is through compromise. And in a compromise you can't get all you want. Don't expect the majority to heed all your demands.
Be a little appreciative of the sufferings of others. If you think a little extra time you need to spend in the queue is turning you so angry, what goes in the mind of a person who has to spend twice or thrice as much time in the same queue, for no fault of his/hers?
Don't BS on 'diversity'. There is already a 'diversity visa' which Indians & Chinese cannot use. Want to come under diversity? Apply in the lottery. Be a little humane and think about the suffering of others. May be you'll see the light. You are not going to win many friends by alleging "an agenda by some country". It's preposturous, laughable and Dobbsian ( like Lou Dobbs alleged "invasion by Mexicans")
more...
makeup Kristen Stewart says the
snathan
01-16 01:40 PM
Accepting regulations does not mean to prevent Indians to come here. I can tell many examples. There are many bodyshoppers get h1B and make the persons to sit on bench in India or USA. I know some persons come here 1 year after getting h1b. But many reputed companies those who are real need of people could not get H1b as Cap was reduced. Putting restrictions on on bodyshoppers will improve H1b usage and wastage can be eliminated. And will make h1b program legitimate.
If you like the regulation please go ahead and follow that regulation. We are scrabling to find the legal solution here. Why you waste your time in something which you dont believe. YOu are unnecessarily deviating from the topic. Please ignore this thread if you dont believe in the cause.
If you like the regulation please go ahead and follow that regulation. We are scrabling to find the legal solution here. Why you waste your time in something which you dont believe. YOu are unnecessarily deviating from the topic. Please ignore this thread if you dont believe in the cause.
girlfriend new moon twilight saga kristen
soljabhai
12-13 10:43 AM
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
hairstyles Kristen Stewart thinks
cableman
12-13 09:02 PM
I can't agree more. In fact, I don't understand how we can argue the quota cap discriminate a special group. The quota cap system is very different from the case of which a man could vote but not a woman. The quota cap system applies to every country fairly. Every foreign citizen can apply for immigration. Any country reaching the cap will have to wait for next year quota. Perhaps it is *too* fair that the system doesn't account the world population distribution. IMHO I have no doubt that this case would lose in the court and I am sure that bringing this case to the court would make EB applicants enemy to the country. In the end, what do we achieve?
venky321
01-14 12:25 AM
Is this Memorandom final?
If yes, then the options for them whose employer is consulting company and the employer is not direct vendor to the client are as follows:
1. If status is H1B, then join direct client of the employer or switch employer having projects with direct clients.
2. If maintaing H1B status and also have EAD, then switch to EAD ASAP because this Memorandom is for H1B (renewal/extension or Change).
Don't think working for the direct vendor will help. Read page 6 of the report; it will be hard even for the direct vendor to show control over the employee.
If yes, then the options for them whose employer is consulting company and the employer is not direct vendor to the client are as follows:
1. If status is H1B, then join direct client of the employer or switch employer having projects with direct clients.
2. If maintaing H1B status and also have EAD, then switch to EAD ASAP because this Memorandom is for H1B (renewal/extension or Change).
Don't think working for the direct vendor will help. Read page 6 of the report; it will be hard even for the direct vendor to show control over the employee.
immi_enthu
07-26 07:32 PM
we dont need to work after 40 we will move to Florida with all the money we make , stop stalking people , stop working just enjoy everyday on the beach and big mansion bought from the savings from the regular job and live off of free $xxxx/month earnings we make out of Amway/Quixtar . Where as you guys will be slogging in 40's and 50's
