mbartosik
12-13 11:48 PM
Mark,
what say you?
In some states the courts are "Courts of equity and law" or is it "Courts of law and equity", in other words the court has a mandate to enforce fairness within the bounds of the law (NY State is one such state). This derives from English law. However, I do not believe that is the case for federal court.
If the courts were courts only of fairness, equity, what's right, etc., yes, indeed then I think that we would win. But the courts are courts of law. In our case the federal courts are courts of federal law. Congress writes those laws, and the courts are free to interpret those law but not change them. The courts can also throw out a law (this is often appealed to Supreme court). The Supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution, and to define how the lower courts must interpret the law, or to throw back the law to Congress.
We have next to no chance in lower courts.
Even if we appealed through courts up to Supreme court, and win we would loss because Congress would still be free to change the law to restrict in other ways, possibly with the same effect. In the mean time we would alienate those law makers on our side. Also USCIS would be free to stop ALL EB immigration, while the Congress decided how to rewrite the law.
In our case there is no interpretation other than the mess that we are in is the law. So the Supreme court would have to find that the law was against the constitution, which I highly doubt that it is.
Even if the supreme court found that the law was against the constitution, Congress could enact another similar law (akin to minimum sentence), that merely fitted within the framework of the constitution but achieved the same end result. A recent example of this was when the Supreme court found that Gitmo detainees must be given a right to review of their detention. The detainees were not immediately released because they were detained without review and against the constitution, no, Congress simply passed a law allowing review by military tribunal, that complied with the Constitution, and the detainees remained detained, with a totally meaningless review (not allowed to see evidence against them etc.).
Thus the branch of government that we need to convince is Congress (which by the way I think the Constitution or an amendment gives the right to government immigration).
I'm not saying do not fight, just fight smart.
To me fighting smart means going to the law makers, politely, and persuasively. It is not aggressive, it is not radical, but it is fighting wisely. So I don't think that we are backing down in the face of things that are wrong, I think that we are standing up, but intelligently, and fighting where we can win.
It is Congress that ultimately decides, the Supreme court can only say to them, "sorry, not in compliance, try again".
what say you?
In some states the courts are "Courts of equity and law" or is it "Courts of law and equity", in other words the court has a mandate to enforce fairness within the bounds of the law (NY State is one such state). This derives from English law. However, I do not believe that is the case for federal court.
If the courts were courts only of fairness, equity, what's right, etc., yes, indeed then I think that we would win. But the courts are courts of law. In our case the federal courts are courts of federal law. Congress writes those laws, and the courts are free to interpret those law but not change them. The courts can also throw out a law (this is often appealed to Supreme court). The Supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution, and to define how the lower courts must interpret the law, or to throw back the law to Congress.
We have next to no chance in lower courts.
Even if we appealed through courts up to Supreme court, and win we would loss because Congress would still be free to change the law to restrict in other ways, possibly with the same effect. In the mean time we would alienate those law makers on our side. Also USCIS would be free to stop ALL EB immigration, while the Congress decided how to rewrite the law.
In our case there is no interpretation other than the mess that we are in is the law. So the Supreme court would have to find that the law was against the constitution, which I highly doubt that it is.
Even if the supreme court found that the law was against the constitution, Congress could enact another similar law (akin to minimum sentence), that merely fitted within the framework of the constitution but achieved the same end result. A recent example of this was when the Supreme court found that Gitmo detainees must be given a right to review of their detention. The detainees were not immediately released because they were detained without review and against the constitution, no, Congress simply passed a law allowing review by military tribunal, that complied with the Constitution, and the detainees remained detained, with a totally meaningless review (not allowed to see evidence against them etc.).
Thus the branch of government that we need to convince is Congress (which by the way I think the Constitution or an amendment gives the right to government immigration).
I'm not saying do not fight, just fight smart.
To me fighting smart means going to the law makers, politely, and persuasively. It is not aggressive, it is not radical, but it is fighting wisely. So I don't think that we are backing down in the face of things that are wrong, I think that we are standing up, but intelligently, and fighting where we can win.
It is Congress that ultimately decides, the Supreme court can only say to them, "sorry, not in compliance, try again".
wallpaper Listen To Selena Gomez#39;s “A
Picasa
07-30 02:15 PM
Are you a Amway leech too?
Here is a definition of Amway (and psaxena)
An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A Amway leech(and psaxena)cannot live independently.
Amway (and psaxena) diseases include infections by protozoa, helminths, and arthropods
Wait a min , how much had you?? Your status is Member and Kaushal's is a Donor.. wait a min let me think who is donating and who is a FREELOADER here.
The guy is doing something to make his life better, atleast making an attempt to do something better, why do you losers are trying to demotivate and shoot him down.
No work is small or big , good or bad , work is work.. you wanna do it , just do it , else walk to out. Do not exhibit the desi attitude "I won't do it as what someone will say and also do not let any one else do it." Grow up.
Here is a definition of Amway (and psaxena)
An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A Amway leech(and psaxena)cannot live independently.
Amway (and psaxena) diseases include infections by protozoa, helminths, and arthropods
Wait a min , how much had you?? Your status is Member and Kaushal's is a Donor.. wait a min let me think who is donating and who is a FREELOADER here.
The guy is doing something to make his life better, atleast making an attempt to do something better, why do you losers are trying to demotivate and shoot him down.
No work is small or big , good or bad , work is work.. you wanna do it , just do it , else walk to out. Do not exhibit the desi attitude "I won't do it as what someone will say and also do not let any one else do it." Grow up.
texanguy
06-02 12:09 AM
Guys...can somebody tell me why they are not counting on EB1 & EB2 row numbers for the last quarter of 2009? Historically, these were the numbers which were transferred to oversubscribed countries, because of which priority dates well pushed way ahead. What's different this time? Even if USCIS works with tremendous efficiency, they cant really use those numbers before the quarter starts.
Nobody seems to notice this fact???
Nobody seems to notice this fact???
2011 hairstyles quot;A Year Without
BharatPremi
12-14 02:23 PM
O.K. Forget for a moment about IN,China,MX and Philipines. Let me understand the "Quota" witihin "ROW"
Example: Britain, Pakistan.
Let's say next year tons of nationals of Britain Choose to apply under EB.
Let's say total is more than 7% of Total 1,40,000 limit.
Is that allowed?
Same question for Pakistan...
Example: Britain, Pakistan.
Let's say next year tons of nationals of Britain Choose to apply under EB.
Let's say total is more than 7% of Total 1,40,000 limit.
Is that allowed?
Same question for Pakistan...
more...
Rb_newsletter
01-21 06:15 PM
I got the below email from multiple friends. I don't know what is the source, who wrote this analysis because there is no links. I did NOT mean to spread the fear. Just sharing the contents unaltered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
pointlesswait
09-29 02:50 PM
like i had said in my earlier posts...this is retarded idea..to begin with...and still is..
cause...if anyone is even dreaming of buying a house thinking the home values are down ..think again..no matter how good ur credit rating is..you will have to pay high interest...and no one in their right mind will say that the home values have bottomed out..it will continue to fall ...
First of all for presuming that highly skilled immigrants who are waiting for GC are the only ones who can buy a house. Even 10 illegal aliens can come together and buy a house and share the mortgage.
Then, the economy is in it's cycle, it will pick up without more house buying. The issue is banks not lending to BUSINESSES not mortgages.
Most imporant, the proposal is same as saying "Sell me a GC". Ya, sure, that will pass the House and Senate.
Remember, nothing stops you from buying a house right now!!
cause...if anyone is even dreaming of buying a house thinking the home values are down ..think again..no matter how good ur credit rating is..you will have to pay high interest...and no one in their right mind will say that the home values have bottomed out..it will continue to fall ...
First of all for presuming that highly skilled immigrants who are waiting for GC are the only ones who can buy a house. Even 10 illegal aliens can come together and buy a house and share the mortgage.
Then, the economy is in it's cycle, it will pick up without more house buying. The issue is banks not lending to BUSINESSES not mortgages.
Most imporant, the proposal is same as saying "Sell me a GC". Ya, sure, that will pass the House and Senate.
Remember, nothing stops you from buying a house right now!!
more...
BharatPremi
12-13 05:52 PM
Note that it would certainly not benefit the other 60%+ from countries other than India that are also stuck in various steps (EB3, name check). So, unless you want IV to stand for IndiaVoice, you should concentrate your admirable effort on increasing the overall quota (with increased per-country quota), excluding dependents, etc.
Do not worry about that. IV has everything in the agenda what you mentioned.This thread is about 'Constitutionality argument against per-country ceilings'.Nobody here is saying to promote the fight against "Per country ceiling" ONLY.
Do not worry about that. IV has everything in the agenda what you mentioned.This thread is about 'Constitutionality argument against per-country ceilings'.Nobody here is saying to promote the fight against "Per country ceiling" ONLY.
2010 VIDEOS. Selena Gomez - New
oguinan
02-15 08:19 PM
Sure it is. Check the UN definition.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
The two paragraphs following the one that you just quoted read:
2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.
3. Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.
According to the UN resolution immigration and naturalization laws do not constitute "racial discrimination" by definition. The quota based system does discriminate against people from China and South Asia. But the law as originally established did not intend to do this.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
The two paragraphs following the one that you just quoted read:
2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.
3. Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.
According to the UN resolution immigration and naturalization laws do not constitute "racial discrimination" by definition. The quota based system does discriminate against people from China and South Asia. But the law as originally established did not intend to do this.
more...
grupak
02-13 12:24 PM
For those who do not see the unfairness because of country of origin, here is a scenario:
Your colleague and friend work in the same company as you, have similar qualification. Both of you apply for the GC around the same time, you get it years maybe decade sooner and can move onto a higher position, maybe better job. Your friend is still stuck at the same position even though he has been a good worker and should have been promoted in an ideal situation.
We are here not because of our country of origin but because of our employment. So, lets not get into 'us' and 'them'. We are all skilled-employees, and that's what IV represents.
A system that holds back employees for years because of country of origin instead of job performance is clearly broken. IV is fighting to fix it.
(1) Increasing the visa numbers and (2) removing/increasing cap is only the solution.
Your colleague and friend work in the same company as you, have similar qualification. Both of you apply for the GC around the same time, you get it years maybe decade sooner and can move onto a higher position, maybe better job. Your friend is still stuck at the same position even though he has been a good worker and should have been promoted in an ideal situation.
We are here not because of our country of origin but because of our employment. So, lets not get into 'us' and 'them'. We are all skilled-employees, and that's what IV represents.
A system that holds back employees for years because of country of origin instead of job performance is clearly broken. IV is fighting to fix it.
(1) Increasing the visa numbers and (2) removing/increasing cap is only the solution.
hair Selena Gomez can#39;t wait until
msp1976
02-12 08:54 PM
Without reform in the next few months.....dates for EB3 ROW would also start moving backwards....
The BECs would chew on the TR cases and throw out 100 K approvals in the next few months....That it .... Sayonara for the EB3 world current dates too.....
The BECs would chew on the TR cases and throw out 100 K approvals in the next few months....That it .... Sayonara for the EB3 world current dates too.....
more...
NKR
02-16 03:22 PM
man.. u can click on a user and see all the posts he sent, so good luck
i must have joined two years and participated in topics all this time so that i today i get a chance to destroy IV.. plz put down the 007 book and listen for once..
u can't see that people started belittling ROWs here first.. then i admit it's a waste of time to try to reason with u
You guys see everything wrong with us. If the spouse works, you will say they are taking away your jobs. If they study, you say that they pay instate fees where as you pay international fee. If they do MBA and become your manager, you will say that not only they are getting jobs, now they are bossing over us. If they stay at home, you will find wrong with that too saying that they are not doing anything but are getting all the benefits..
It does not matter if spouses stay at home and lose years of salaries which translates to more than the international fees that some people pay. It does not matter that we have to face hurdles in each and every step of the way, be it when getting medical insurance or life insurance or while traveling. We have to renew visas every year by paying thousands, we have to renew our licences. We have to go for visa stamping even if we have gone for an emergency visit. We have to remain in the same job without growth, without promotion. Do you know it is not easy for a H4 person to get a credit card to start building credit history?.
If you have a solution to reduce all of our pain without increasing the waiting time for ROW people say it here cause that is what we need and what USCIS will appreciate. You do not have to bring corruption and all that crap into picture. That can be another discussion. If I have to pay fees to get some things faster then I will call it nothing but organized bribery within legal framework. That is what is happening in countries which you say is less corrupt, but then why do you care, you enjoy your soccer game....
i must have joined two years and participated in topics all this time so that i today i get a chance to destroy IV.. plz put down the 007 book and listen for once..
u can't see that people started belittling ROWs here first.. then i admit it's a waste of time to try to reason with u
You guys see everything wrong with us. If the spouse works, you will say they are taking away your jobs. If they study, you say that they pay instate fees where as you pay international fee. If they do MBA and become your manager, you will say that not only they are getting jobs, now they are bossing over us. If they stay at home, you will find wrong with that too saying that they are not doing anything but are getting all the benefits..
It does not matter if spouses stay at home and lose years of salaries which translates to more than the international fees that some people pay. It does not matter that we have to face hurdles in each and every step of the way, be it when getting medical insurance or life insurance or while traveling. We have to renew visas every year by paying thousands, we have to renew our licences. We have to go for visa stamping even if we have gone for an emergency visit. We have to remain in the same job without growth, without promotion. Do you know it is not easy for a H4 person to get a credit card to start building credit history?.
If you have a solution to reduce all of our pain without increasing the waiting time for ROW people say it here cause that is what we need and what USCIS will appreciate. You do not have to bring corruption and all that crap into picture. That can be another discussion. If I have to pay fees to get some things faster then I will call it nothing but organized bribery within legal framework. That is what is happening in countries which you say is less corrupt, but then why do you care, you enjoy your soccer game....
hot Selena Gomez amp; The Scene: A
syzygy
09-23 02:28 AM
I have sent close to 10 emails putting subject
"Proposal to alleviate current US economic crisis"
I hope I am doing right..
"Proposal to alleviate current US economic crisis"
I hope I am doing right..
more...
house Selena Gomez Donates Dress to
leoindiano
07-17 09:35 AM
Dear Attorney,
I had 2 I-140's for same job, same employer. Both approved. When lawyer sent I-485 package they sent the receipt of I-140 which had earlier PD, Which is what i wanted. I saw an LUD on other I-140 on 11/27/2007 almost after a year it was approved. Is that a matter of worry?
On I-485 receipt, Priority Date field is blank. How can i confirm that they got the correct I-140 attached to my I-140?
Thank You
I had 2 I-140's for same job, same employer. Both approved. When lawyer sent I-485 package they sent the receipt of I-140 which had earlier PD, Which is what i wanted. I saw an LUD on other I-140 on 11/27/2007 almost after a year it was approved. Is that a matter of worry?
On I-485 receipt, Priority Date field is blank. How can i confirm that they got the correct I-140 attached to my I-140?
Thank You
tattoo 2010 selena gomez year without
snathan
08-17 12:37 PM
It looks like a lot of "so called educated folks" are PROBABLY JELOUS :) :) of Mr SRK.
No matter what - he is a capable man and I appreciate him for whatever he is.
If he is not doing anything to reduce poverty in India - well then it is his choice, but you can definitely let him know "Mr SRK please use your popularity in a good way and reduce poverty and disease in India"
Folks - all the starts do have "value" When I say stars - they are public figures, right from mucisians to television anchors to actors or ramp models or anyone - they are what they are because of their destiny, so just because they cannot code or hold a sthethescope, does not mean they are bad.
In fact The then president of the US applauded 'Bill Pullman" for his fascinating speech in the Independence Day movie claiming he did something marvellous.
No one cares who the heck is he...when dozens of people dying without food and because of drought, GOI has better jobs to do rather than going after the BCP for this moron. How many times Ambika Soni cared about normal people are suffered in security check. We are still struck colonial mentality and hero worship. This crap is happening only in india. They are expecting the same from US as well.
No matter what - he is a capable man and I appreciate him for whatever he is.
If he is not doing anything to reduce poverty in India - well then it is his choice, but you can definitely let him know "Mr SRK please use your popularity in a good way and reduce poverty and disease in India"
Folks - all the starts do have "value" When I say stars - they are public figures, right from mucisians to television anchors to actors or ramp models or anyone - they are what they are because of their destiny, so just because they cannot code or hold a sthethescope, does not mean they are bad.
In fact The then president of the US applauded 'Bill Pullman" for his fascinating speech in the Independence Day movie claiming he did something marvellous.
No one cares who the heck is he...when dozens of people dying without food and because of drought, GOI has better jobs to do rather than going after the BCP for this moron. How many times Ambika Soni cared about normal people are suffered in security check. We are still struck colonial mentality and hero worship. This crap is happening only in india. They are expecting the same from US as well.
more...
pictures a year without rain Pictures,
nixstor
02-14 03:24 PM
Totally agree. A and B are not mutually exclusive. We need to push for admin fix and in the meantime explore lawsuit possibility WITHOUT using IV name (does not mean IV members cannot participate as individuals in the lawsuit).
Here is my 2 cents on this
Lets say the interested muster around plaintiffs and sue USCIS. Also, The court agrees that USCIS did not do its duty. Will the court go to the extent of ruling over INA which clearly says that unused visa numbers cannot be recaptured? Will the courts/judicial system set such a precedent where they will go against law just because the agency failed to implement it correctly? I don't think they will set such a precedent by overruling against the law set up by congress and the President who signed it. By long shot, Can the court recommend congress to fix the situation by changing the law and by allowing recapture? Possibly. Does that help and fix our issue?
Here is my 2 cents on this
Lets say the interested muster around plaintiffs and sue USCIS. Also, The court agrees that USCIS did not do its duty. Will the court go to the extent of ruling over INA which clearly says that unused visa numbers cannot be recaptured? Will the courts/judicial system set such a precedent where they will go against law just because the agency failed to implement it correctly? I don't think they will set such a precedent by overruling against the law set up by congress and the President who signed it. By long shot, Can the court recommend congress to fix the situation by changing the law and by allowing recapture? Possibly. Does that help and fix our issue?
dresses Selena Gomez – “A Year Without
vbkris77
09-15 04:24 PM
with everyone worried abt the economy and health reforms.. Immigration reforms are toast this year.
While we must pursue the overall reforms,
i suggest that we also seek temporary relief seeking lifting of the ban on filing for 485 for the next 2-3 months... this will help most EB3 and EB2 (I/C/) who missed the 2007 window.
What are the chances of such a relief being provided?
Will a mail campaign work?..plz raise your hand if you are interested..;)
Most lawyers think that it needs a law change. So if we are going to work with lawmakers, why not aim high and get recapture?? So in a nutshell, we will need to wait for CIR.
While we must pursue the overall reforms,
i suggest that we also seek temporary relief seeking lifting of the ban on filing for 485 for the next 2-3 months... this will help most EB3 and EB2 (I/C/) who missed the 2007 window.
What are the chances of such a relief being provided?
Will a mail campaign work?..plz raise your hand if you are interested..;)
Most lawyers think that it needs a law change. So if we are going to work with lawmakers, why not aim high and get recapture?? So in a nutshell, we will need to wait for CIR.
more...
makeup Selena-Gomez-A-Year-Without-
sriramkalyan
01-13 07:58 PM
My suggestion is, people who are not with Direct vendor, they should try get the H1B transferred ASAP. Existing companies cant put any hold on it!!
girlfriend Selena Gomez A year without
sidbee
06-17 02:17 PM
I have heard the opposite. In fact one recent story I heard , was the guy applied in EB1 as International Manager and got his GC in 6 months. Again the company applying is Cognizant.
Maybe the source u heard from is someone from Cognizant itself or supporter of Cognizant whose trying to cover up and trying make sure that no one reports about their misuse of EB1, so that they can continue to apply in EB1. This is a high possibility. So when you hear such news do not believe it completely.
Morever H-1Bs are rejected for lot of companies. So cognizant is no exception to that. Regarding the EB-1 GC holders being deported , I find that really hard to believe.
Its perfectly legal for Cognizant to apply for EB1 for a Manager on L1A. Salary may be peanuts , and that cant be a basis of discrimination.
I don't even see a misuse, if you job duties are same as what is told to USCIS for L1A, You can easily get a GC in 2 months.
Which law states, getting GC using EB1 , on L1A is not allowed, In fact it is , and that's why people use it.
Maybe the source u heard from is someone from Cognizant itself or supporter of Cognizant whose trying to cover up and trying make sure that no one reports about their misuse of EB1, so that they can continue to apply in EB1. This is a high possibility. So when you hear such news do not believe it completely.
Morever H-1Bs are rejected for lot of companies. So cognizant is no exception to that. Regarding the EB-1 GC holders being deported , I find that really hard to believe.
Its perfectly legal for Cognizant to apply for EB1 for a Manager on L1A. Salary may be peanuts , and that cant be a basis of discrimination.
I don't even see a misuse, if you job duties are same as what is told to USCIS for L1A, You can easily get a GC in 2 months.
Which law states, getting GC using EB1 , on L1A is not allowed, In fact it is , and that's why people use it.
hairstyles Selena Gomez – “A Year Without
eb3retro
07-22 09:12 AM
not really..i think we want to give a benefit of doubt to the amway person not to do this and lose our friendship (esp when close friends do this to you). We know how to be tough. Been there done that. I came to a conclusion that people who cannot understand the value of friendship can never be true friends. Esp when my close friend spoiled his friendship with me due to amway.
We desis are too polite and can't say NO easily like others. I have learnt to say NO in the US now, makes my life much easier....be nice and say no politely.
We desis are too polite and can't say NO easily like others. I have learnt to say NO in the US now, makes my life much easier....be nice and say no politely.
villamonte6100
12-14 12:30 PM
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
You don't have a case. Before laws are signed, lawmakers spend hours and hours or weeks arguing, debating and modying before it is passed by both Senators and congressmen.
If they change the current law to favor Indians, then it will be disciminatory to other nationals. Think the other way.
Personally, I don't see any discrimination in the existing law. It so happened that you came from Indian and the law only allows a certain percentage per country.
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
You don't have a case. Before laws are signed, lawmakers spend hours and hours or weeks arguing, debating and modying before it is passed by both Senators and congressmen.
If they change the current law to favor Indians, then it will be disciminatory to other nationals. Think the other way.
Personally, I don't see any discrimination in the existing law. It so happened that you came from Indian and the law only allows a certain percentage per country.
whatamidoinghere
02-23 05:22 AM
Looking only at LCs that are awaiting immigrant visa numbers (ie, LCs that are "still in process" or "certified after current EB3 ROW cutoff dates") here is how it looks (copy to an XL sheet to view properly):
Period, World, India(22%), EB2-India(41% of India), EB2-India-Family(*2.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 to 2002, 269311, 59271, 24320, 51072
2002 to 2003, 36200, 7967, 3269, 6865
2003 to 2004, 13145, 2893, 1187, 2493
2004 to 2005, 6133, 1350, 554, 1163
The pre 2002 numbers pending are really bad. The last column sums up the situation for EB2-India. Use your own %ages to calculate the situation for EB3. It is clear that forward movement will be held back due to the huge chunk of LCs from 1997 to 2002 which are being certified.
So the situation is indeed hopeless and lobbying is the only way out.
Period, World, India(22%), EB2-India(41% of India), EB2-India-Family(*2.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 to 2002, 269311, 59271, 24320, 51072
2002 to 2003, 36200, 7967, 3269, 6865
2003 to 2004, 13145, 2893, 1187, 2493
2004 to 2005, 6133, 1350, 554, 1163
The pre 2002 numbers pending are really bad. The last column sums up the situation for EB2-India. Use your own %ages to calculate the situation for EB3. It is clear that forward movement will be held back due to the huge chunk of LCs from 1997 to 2002 which are being certified.
So the situation is indeed hopeless and lobbying is the only way out.
No comments:
Post a Comment