smuggymba
08-23 08:41 AM
see below.. I think you should be OK.
USCIS - Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=816a83453d4a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=816a83453d4a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60a RCRD)
Looks like 10 years experience is required for individuals applying under "Exceptional Ability".
Thanks Kate. Hopefully everything should be ok; I freaked out for a while. Let's see how things go.
USCIS - Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=816a83453d4a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=816a83453d4a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60a RCRD)
Looks like 10 years experience is required for individuals applying under "Exceptional Ability".
Thanks Kate. Hopefully everything should be ok; I freaked out for a while. Let's see how things go.
wallpaper Kristina Shannon, Karissa
unseenguy
02-11 01:24 AM
yes, my previous reply to your post was a bit sarcastic. Didnt mean to offend anyone!
Using your same token, can we say "there are many idiots here who don't know what parenting is and use their parents to get a life for themselves and then ditch them?"
Dude, straitjacketing doesn't work and as you said, it is totally based on circumstances. :)
Yeah right . You dont mean to offend by being sarcastic. Why are you in US? Go take care of your old parents in India? More than your money they need your physical presence there.
Oh wait, you probably have a brother who did not study much or maybe a sister in India who is taking care of them and you only provide monetory support.
And yes, I dont care if this offends you.
Using your same token, can we say "there are many idiots here who don't know what parenting is and use their parents to get a life for themselves and then ditch them?"
Dude, straitjacketing doesn't work and as you said, it is totally based on circumstances. :)
Yeah right . You dont mean to offend by being sarcastic. Why are you in US? Go take care of your old parents in India? More than your money they need your physical presence there.
Oh wait, you probably have a brother who did not study much or maybe a sister in India who is taking care of them and you only provide monetory support.
And yes, I dont care if this offends you.
tinamatthew
07-22 06:50 PM
I am glad to see sked A here. I have been following this forum for a long time now and there is nothing for healthcare prof though the discussions were very helpful. As I can see it, the july VB put benefits on those going through AOS but as a result those whom I know who are scheduled for interview in their home countries in AUg. was cancelled.
That is sad news!! I can just imagine how they feel, after waiting so long! Anyway lets hope something positive happens for the Oct bulletin.
A hospital I know is SO short of nurses they are offering them GREAT incentives to take on extra shifts. I mean it is an ACUTE shortage.
That is sad news!! I can just imagine how they feel, after waiting so long! Anyway lets hope something positive happens for the Oct bulletin.
A hospital I know is SO short of nurses they are offering them GREAT incentives to take on extra shifts. I mean it is an ACUTE shortage.
2011 Karissa Shannon 1249893817216
reddog
09-15 10:45 AM
This is the Indian mentality at work. My EB3 bro whose employer(company policy) did not allow him to file under EB2 even though he had over 7 years of experience and was making 70 bucks an hour when he filed, is not better than his EB2 bro just cos he is EB3.
That is it. Nail on the head. No, thats not all, look at the support, and these are Indian folks. I live in a small city with 150 Indian families (most of them doctors and other occupations) who have migrated to the US atleast 25 years back.
These people are just happy that we are here, that they now have a 150 family Indian community that they can call their own.
And here we are, all the skilled Eb2 guys, who are superior to the EB3 guys not wanting their EB3 non-immigrant men to ever get their Green Cards.
It is funny that rather than trying to correct the system, fight the inefficiences and amend the laws, someone is tryin to channelize their energies to fight against their own group. And more surprising is that there are a lot of supporters.
IV, your days are numbered.
That is it. Nail on the head. No, thats not all, look at the support, and these are Indian folks. I live in a small city with 150 Indian families (most of them doctors and other occupations) who have migrated to the US atleast 25 years back.
These people are just happy that we are here, that they now have a 150 family Indian community that they can call their own.
And here we are, all the skilled Eb2 guys, who are superior to the EB3 guys not wanting their EB3 non-immigrant men to ever get their Green Cards.
It is funny that rather than trying to correct the system, fight the inefficiences and amend the laws, someone is tryin to channelize their energies to fight against their own group. And more surprising is that there are a lot of supporters.
IV, your days are numbered.
more...
conundrum
04-30 03:13 PM
The member from Chicago is mainly concerned about the family based limits. He wants to know what the limit is or if there is a cap in the first place
tnite
07-20 07:53 AM
I dont understand why the democrats are hell bent on not helping the legal community and ofcourse sessions voted against us
what a shame!!1
what a shame!!1
more...
meridiani.planum
04-01 05:32 PM
OK now Mr. non-retard...cud u do all of us a favour by showing some article which says, US democracy is the same for citizens and foreigners. Send us a link from some Govt web site that says this. If u cant substantiate ur statements admit that u r a retard.
he did not say 'democracy is same for citizens and foreigners' whatever that means. He said that foreigners have same basic rights as citizens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
"The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory."
"The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to petition;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_petition
The right to petition is the freedom of individuals (and sometimes groups and corporations) to petition their government for a correction or repair of some form of injustice without fear of punishment for the same.
So yes, you do have the right to peititon for correction or repair of some form of injustice (Eg: wastage of visa numbers) without fear of punishment. It cant get any more clearer than this.
If you want change, begin by growing a spine and saying 'status-quo is not acceptable'
he did not say 'democracy is same for citizens and foreigners' whatever that means. He said that foreigners have same basic rights as citizens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
"The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory."
"The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to petition;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_petition
The right to petition is the freedom of individuals (and sometimes groups and corporations) to petition their government for a correction or repair of some form of injustice without fear of punishment for the same.
So yes, you do have the right to peititon for correction or repair of some form of injustice (Eg: wastage of visa numbers) without fear of punishment. It cant get any more clearer than this.
If you want change, begin by growing a spine and saying 'status-quo is not acceptable'
2010 shannon crystal harris crystal
hpandey
08-11 03:52 PM
Looks like the USCIS had been busy with the citizenship applications before the Nov elections and hence it has been slow approving I-140's and GC's. Now that it is coming to an end we might see our applications moving forward. Maybe from Nov onwards it would be better.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/08/us_tackles_citi.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/08/us_tackles_citi.html
more...
GCVir
07-28 08:36 PM
Age Out Issue for filing I-485: Gurus, please advise me on the age out issue of my son.
(1) Dates & Calculations effecting filing I_485: Here are the dates and the calculations I did which result in effective age of �21 yrs + 1 month + 1 day� thus making it Age-out issue for filing for I-485 for my son.
(A) Priority date : Nov, 2005
(B) I-140 receipt : 2/22/2006 I-140 approval : 3/22/2006
(C) I-140 pending period : One month (too fast where it was not a help!)
(I-140 was approved in my son�s 20th year � however, I learned that it is not of any help for filing his I-485)
(D) Applied for I-485 (for rest of family � not for son) (Thanks to IV) : First week of July 2007
(E) DOB of son : 3/30/1986
(F) Currant age : 21 yrs + 4 months (Currently on F1 and doing his under grad in US)
(G) Date to be considered for determining the age for filing I-485 : 6/1/2007
(since the monthly bulletin is released on 6/12/2007)
(H) Age as on above date (6/1/2007) : 21 yrs + 2 month + 1 day
(I) Benefit from CSPA :(I-140) pending days (C) : 1 month
(J) Effective age for filing I-485 during current window : (H) � (J) : 21 yrs + 1 month + 1 day
(2) Since, he aged out for filing for I-485 (also based on attorney�s calculation), his papers were not included and only papers for rest of the family were filed in July, 2007. Friends, is there any other interpretation of CSPA � which could be helpful in this scenario?
(3) Other Particulars (which could potentially offer any other solution / advice): I am from India and in US from sep 1998 (change of employer forced me to restart my GC process) and my son entered USA in Oct 1999 at his 13 � yrs and stayed continuously & studied in USA from 9th standard. Currently, he is in final yr of under graduate study and is on F1 visa from March 2007 (after completing 21 yrs) paying high (2.5 times the instate fee) international student fee.
(4) Can I do any thing in the current window when dates are current (until 8/17/07): Friends, if there is any way of filing his I-485, it will be of great help � since he could continue his graduate study at reasonable cost (at instate tuition fee). Are there any other options in this situation? Is there any possibility of I-485 getting receipted (if filed) � since he is supposed to have his PD frozen for his application for family based I-485 at parent�s PD (if applied with in one year of parent�s I-485?) (I am referring to a clause in CSPA � which states that the application will automatically be converted to family based I-485 if applied with in one year � Of course, these dates are not current now).
(5) I am not aware of how many others are affected with age-out issue in EB based cases. Can we come together through IV and identify potential action items? Can IV and immigration community help in addressing the age-out issue in bills proposed to be introduced (like DREAM / SKILL etc�) now on� (Particularly since the percentage of affected people may be very low with less voice that could be heard). I am thankful to IV & the core team for their extraordinary efforts and shall be contributing my part shortly.
Sorry for the long note � I thought the complexity of the issue needs it.
Thx GCVir
(1) Dates & Calculations effecting filing I_485: Here are the dates and the calculations I did which result in effective age of �21 yrs + 1 month + 1 day� thus making it Age-out issue for filing for I-485 for my son.
(A) Priority date : Nov, 2005
(B) I-140 receipt : 2/22/2006 I-140 approval : 3/22/2006
(C) I-140 pending period : One month (too fast where it was not a help!)
(I-140 was approved in my son�s 20th year � however, I learned that it is not of any help for filing his I-485)
(D) Applied for I-485 (for rest of family � not for son) (Thanks to IV) : First week of July 2007
(E) DOB of son : 3/30/1986
(F) Currant age : 21 yrs + 4 months (Currently on F1 and doing his under grad in US)
(G) Date to be considered for determining the age for filing I-485 : 6/1/2007
(since the monthly bulletin is released on 6/12/2007)
(H) Age as on above date (6/1/2007) : 21 yrs + 2 month + 1 day
(I) Benefit from CSPA :(I-140) pending days (C) : 1 month
(J) Effective age for filing I-485 during current window : (H) � (J) : 21 yrs + 1 month + 1 day
(2) Since, he aged out for filing for I-485 (also based on attorney�s calculation), his papers were not included and only papers for rest of the family were filed in July, 2007. Friends, is there any other interpretation of CSPA � which could be helpful in this scenario?
(3) Other Particulars (which could potentially offer any other solution / advice): I am from India and in US from sep 1998 (change of employer forced me to restart my GC process) and my son entered USA in Oct 1999 at his 13 � yrs and stayed continuously & studied in USA from 9th standard. Currently, he is in final yr of under graduate study and is on F1 visa from March 2007 (after completing 21 yrs) paying high (2.5 times the instate fee) international student fee.
(4) Can I do any thing in the current window when dates are current (until 8/17/07): Friends, if there is any way of filing his I-485, it will be of great help � since he could continue his graduate study at reasonable cost (at instate tuition fee). Are there any other options in this situation? Is there any possibility of I-485 getting receipted (if filed) � since he is supposed to have his PD frozen for his application for family based I-485 at parent�s PD (if applied with in one year of parent�s I-485?) (I am referring to a clause in CSPA � which states that the application will automatically be converted to family based I-485 if applied with in one year � Of course, these dates are not current now).
(5) I am not aware of how many others are affected with age-out issue in EB based cases. Can we come together through IV and identify potential action items? Can IV and immigration community help in addressing the age-out issue in bills proposed to be introduced (like DREAM / SKILL etc�) now on� (Particularly since the percentage of affected people may be very low with less voice that could be heard). I am thankful to IV & the core team for their extraordinary efforts and shall be contributing my part shortly.
Sorry for the long note � I thought the complexity of the issue needs it.
Thx GCVir
hair dating Crystal Harris and
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
more...
knnmbd
04-25 01:12 PM
It really becomes ridiculous. You are totally mistaking the purpose of the CIR. It
s not a policy bill, it's a bill about tweaking the existing policy. Giving everyone a priority date based on his/her date of the arrival to the states is to admit that H1b visa is an immigrant visa, which is not. Don't push an envelope too hard, it might backfire in the most unusual way.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. We are on a roller coaster ride and we need to cool our heels. The two amendments to help ease retrogression are already in two of the senator�s bills. Let's push that on through. We can later on use our imaginations to solve any �bigger" immigration issues.
s not a policy bill, it's a bill about tweaking the existing policy. Giving everyone a priority date based on his/her date of the arrival to the states is to admit that H1b visa is an immigrant visa, which is not. Don't push an envelope too hard, it might backfire in the most unusual way.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. We are on a roller coaster ride and we need to cool our heels. The two amendments to help ease retrogression are already in two of the senator�s bills. Let's push that on through. We can later on use our imaginations to solve any �bigger" immigration issues.
hot Crystal Harris and Karissa
gumpena
07-20 03:11 PM
Kennedy, Clinton voted against this... I dont know what they are thinking..
more...
house Hugh Hefner, Crystal Harris et
IV2007
04-08 01:06 PM
Can someone please respond to this ??
Myself (primary applicant) and my spouse are on h1 with EADs. If spouse starts a company(issue checks and do all admin work) and still maintain her h1 with old employer, will it invalidate her h1 just because she used EAD? Reason for asking is if some thing goes wrong with 485, can she fall back on h1?
Myself (primary applicant) and my spouse are on h1 with EADs. If spouse starts a company(issue checks and do all admin work) and still maintain her h1 with old employer, will it invalidate her h1 just because she used EAD? Reason for asking is if some thing goes wrong with 485, can she fall back on h1?
tattoo Crystal Harris and Karissa
insbaby
07-06 01:02 AM
Any volunteers? Why don't I see a single volunteer! Seriously, can we have an election without candidates?!
Not Volunteers but Leaders...
Volunteer is a person who takes responsibility and does a single task. Here the question was raised to have new leaders who can take a flight to Washington DC on Monday morning, change the law by noon to issue GC to every EB category, have a lunch at Olive Garden, come back monday evening.
Not Volunteers but Leaders...
Volunteer is a person who takes responsibility and does a single task. Here the question was raised to have new leaders who can take a flight to Washington DC on Monday morning, change the law by noon to issue GC to every EB category, have a lunch at Olive Garden, come back monday evening.
more...
pictures Karissa Shannon, Hugh Hefner,
hpandey
07-06 11:04 AM
>> Although 30,000 people are IV members
I beg to differ here. 30k+ plus people have signed up so far, but how many are active now? How many have even logged in IV in last 3 months or even 6 months? I don't see any link to discontinue membership here, so we don't know how many people up signed up and left?
There is no way to know count of "active members". Many IV members have got GC in last 2 years and they have "quitely" left IV and forgotten the struggle by EB based immigrants. How many members stay at IV after getting GC?
Many people believe that by getting EAD they are Temp GC holders and motivation for seeking any benefit is gone.
I am pained to say this, but we are a thankless community.
.
Yes you are right also . As I said a lot of people don't care what happens to everyone else as long as their immediate situation becomes okay or they get a GC. That is why illegal-immigrants have a voice - they have money and they have got mass participation from their community - even people who are citizens here or got GC .
As for our EB community - try going to a person who got citizenship or a GC and then hear what you will get. They will either politely decline or start talking about the abuse of the H1 program and things like that. They won't lift a finger to help us.
Well what can we expect from our fellow EB naturalized citizens and GC holders when even we on H1 or in 485 queue won't help ourselves.
Someone mentioned above that IV has 450K in assets and hence no funding issue. I personally don't think that is enough for bring a change like getting visa recapture or other legislation.
I beg to differ here. 30k+ plus people have signed up so far, but how many are active now? How many have even logged in IV in last 3 months or even 6 months? I don't see any link to discontinue membership here, so we don't know how many people up signed up and left?
There is no way to know count of "active members". Many IV members have got GC in last 2 years and they have "quitely" left IV and forgotten the struggle by EB based immigrants. How many members stay at IV after getting GC?
Many people believe that by getting EAD they are Temp GC holders and motivation for seeking any benefit is gone.
I am pained to say this, but we are a thankless community.
.
Yes you are right also . As I said a lot of people don't care what happens to everyone else as long as their immediate situation becomes okay or they get a GC. That is why illegal-immigrants have a voice - they have money and they have got mass participation from their community - even people who are citizens here or got GC .
As for our EB community - try going to a person who got citizenship or a GC and then hear what you will get. They will either politely decline or start talking about the abuse of the H1 program and things like that. They won't lift a finger to help us.
Well what can we expect from our fellow EB naturalized citizens and GC holders when even we on H1 or in 485 queue won't help ourselves.
Someone mentioned above that IV has 450K in assets and hence no funding issue. I personally don't think that is enough for bring a change like getting visa recapture or other legislation.
dresses Karissa Shannon Crystal Harris
HopeSprings
12-16 02:35 PM
I have been intending to post this for a while: I still have major doubts on the predictions made by DOS. We all are grateful to them to at least do an effort to provide such predictions, but things don't add up.
It is everyone's understanding that these predictions are based on the information about "preadjudicated applications" from USCIS. Now if you look at the total number of preadjudicated applications from what USCIS has published, it seems that PD (for EB2 India) will move to at least to 2007 if not 2008 by the end of fiscal year 2010. There are no new 485 filings (except for EB1 and EB2 ROW) and unless there is a "HUGE" increase in these categories, there is no other way to explain the basis for these predictions.
Someone else mentioned in this thread about the large number of filings in 2005 due to PERM, but remember, this should already be accounted for in USCIS's preadjudicated numbers.
So either these DOS predictions are some form of scare technique, or too much conservative estimate (so as not to disappoint people) or there is a missing piece of information that we have no clue about.
In any case, I do not claim to be a "better predictor" than DOS; but reality is that all these are pedictions and we have to wait till July-Sept 2010 to find out the truth.
Hoping for the best....:)
I agree with you. I think USCIS has made a conservative estimate, most likely, based on past spillover numbers. However, situation is little different this time. With the bad economy, there were less number of PERM applications filed in FY2009 that will claim visa numbers in FY2010. Also, with DOL taking ages to approve new PERM applications, there will be less applicants, that filed PERM this FY, claiming visa number. Thus, there will be lot more spillover this time than previous years. IV has taken this into consideration while doing its math but we cannot expect the same from USCIS. I think EB2I should at least move till mid if not till 2008.
It is everyone's understanding that these predictions are based on the information about "preadjudicated applications" from USCIS. Now if you look at the total number of preadjudicated applications from what USCIS has published, it seems that PD (for EB2 India) will move to at least to 2007 if not 2008 by the end of fiscal year 2010. There are no new 485 filings (except for EB1 and EB2 ROW) and unless there is a "HUGE" increase in these categories, there is no other way to explain the basis for these predictions.
Someone else mentioned in this thread about the large number of filings in 2005 due to PERM, but remember, this should already be accounted for in USCIS's preadjudicated numbers.
So either these DOS predictions are some form of scare technique, or too much conservative estimate (so as not to disappoint people) or there is a missing piece of information that we have no clue about.
In any case, I do not claim to be a "better predictor" than DOS; but reality is that all these are pedictions and we have to wait till July-Sept 2010 to find out the truth.
Hoping for the best....:)
I agree with you. I think USCIS has made a conservative estimate, most likely, based on past spillover numbers. However, situation is little different this time. With the bad economy, there were less number of PERM applications filed in FY2009 that will claim visa numbers in FY2010. Also, with DOL taking ages to approve new PERM applications, there will be less applicants, that filed PERM this FY, claiming visa number. Thus, there will be lot more spillover this time than previous years. IV has taken this into consideration while doing its math but we cannot expect the same from USCIS. I think EB2I should at least move till mid if not till 2008.
more...
makeup Karissa Shannon, Kristina
JunRN
09-28 01:37 PM
It is not even considered yet and I don't think it will ever be considered. That amendment includes not only schedule A but also others and with proposal to increase the number as well.
How could it pass if it's carrying heavy-baggage, it won't move!!!
How could it pass if it's carrying heavy-baggage, it won't move!!!
girlfriend girlfriend Crystal Harris.
reddymjm
02-23 04:32 PM
What is LUD
Last updated date
Last updated date
hairstyles Crystal Harris and Karissa
SkilledWorker4GC
07-15 11:43 AM
I donate another $5 if we reach $2000.00 today.
Total so far = $1170.00
when the high five drive reaches 2000 $
I pledge one High ($5) FiVe
Any one else wants join with me to pledge Just 5$ at 2000 $
Bestofall
EB2-2005 India
Jul 2 485 Applied
Total so far = $1170.00
when the high five drive reaches 2000 $
I pledge one High ($5) FiVe
Any one else wants join with me to pledge Just 5$ at 2000 $
Bestofall
EB2-2005 India
Jul 2 485 Applied
coopheal
10-01 11:52 AM
Yes we all are frustrated, but one thing we can do is contribute to IV. Let IV core have some resources in hand to implement strategies they have thought of for advancement of our cause.
Contributed $100 for this month
Google Order #552474927075339
Contributed $100 for this month
Google Order #552474927075339
satyasaich
07-15 11:31 PM
Dear friends
"Drop and Drop makes an Ocean"
I pledged earlier that i will send another $50 today if the total reaches $2000.
Here is the deal: Just add another $100 and i will make it to $2000.
Still we have time for today. Any takers ????
I'm not a high salary guy nor an $100/hour consultant. I'm just like so many of you, need to support the family as well.But just consider the selfless efforts of IV for all of us. please try to contribute as much as you can, of course this is just a request only.
Satya
"Drop and Drop makes an Ocean"
I pledged earlier that i will send another $50 today if the total reaches $2000.
Here is the deal: Just add another $100 and i will make it to $2000.
Still we have time for today. Any takers ????
I'm not a high salary guy nor an $100/hour consultant. I'm just like so many of you, need to support the family as well.But just consider the selfless efforts of IV for all of us. please try to contribute as much as you can, of course this is just a request only.
Satya
No comments:
Post a Comment