signifer123
02-15 07:25 AM
Well, then i guess me and you can make a subway
wallpaper University of Oregon Ducks
pappu
06-10 12:28 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
rajuseattle
07-14 07:48 PM
One more thing AC-21 is not a formal USCIS form which one can fill in and send it over to USCIS, its just a letter wherein you or your legal representative informs USCIS about the change in employment, be it a job promotion with same employer or u switching the Job using the AC-21 provisions.
As explained earlier in this forum, 180 day rule interpretation is solely USCIS's descretion, if USCIS adjudicator who is working on your case accepts your new EVL and approves your case you are good to go, but for some reason the adjudicator keeps sending more RFE then you will need someone who can answer them in a legal language and thats where attorney services comes in handy.
I am hoping for the best for you that once they see your new EVL, they are satisfied and sends you GC.
As explained earlier in this forum, 180 day rule interpretation is solely USCIS's descretion, if USCIS adjudicator who is working on your case accepts your new EVL and approves your case you are good to go, but for some reason the adjudicator keeps sending more RFE then you will need someone who can answer them in a legal language and thats where attorney services comes in handy.
I am hoping for the best for you that once they see your new EVL, they are satisfied and sends you GC.
2011 Oregon Ducks v.
abhijitp
07-24 09:47 AM
Can someone clarify to our needy members the difference between employment verification letter and employment offer letter please try to understand EVL is not neccesary if you can produce latest payslips from the Employer who sponsored your GC but employment offer letter is very important from the same Employer who sponsored your GC.
Where is anything said about an offer letter/ payslips?
Here is what the instructions for I-485 application form say:
Employment Letter.
If your adjustment of status application is related to an employment based visa petition (Form I-140), you must submit a letter on the letterhead of the petitioning employer which confirms that the job on which the visa petition is based is still available to you. The letter must also state the salary that will be paid.
Where is anything said about an offer letter/ payslips?
Here is what the instructions for I-485 application form say:
Employment Letter.
If your adjustment of status application is related to an employment based visa petition (Form I-140), you must submit a letter on the letterhead of the petitioning employer which confirms that the job on which the visa petition is based is still available to you. The letter must also state the salary that will be paid.
more...
mrdelhiite
07-13 08:25 AM
GCBy3000,
Your criticism of Murthy is noted as you are entitled to speak your mind. But let me ask you a simple question:
Did you exhort your lawyer to send a letter to Secretary Chertoff or the USCIS Director? OR
Did your lawyer send a letter on his own, exhorting the Secretary and the USCIS Director to correct this wrong?
I know the Mahatma would have asked himself the same questions before hurling allegations.
Whatever maybe the intentions of Murthy, this letter is certainly going to help not harm our case.
AND YES - For full disclosure, I am a client of Murthy and have been so for more than five years.
ALL I AM SAYING IS WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. REASON WHY I LIKE IV OVER MURTHY. IMMIGRATION IS MURTHY'S PRIMARY BUSINESS .. IV IS DOING NOT FOR MONEY BUT TO REALLY FIX THINGS ... MUST MEAN SOMETHING RIGHT ... GO IV
-M
Your criticism of Murthy is noted as you are entitled to speak your mind. But let me ask you a simple question:
Did you exhort your lawyer to send a letter to Secretary Chertoff or the USCIS Director? OR
Did your lawyer send a letter on his own, exhorting the Secretary and the USCIS Director to correct this wrong?
I know the Mahatma would have asked himself the same questions before hurling allegations.
Whatever maybe the intentions of Murthy, this letter is certainly going to help not harm our case.
AND YES - For full disclosure, I am a client of Murthy and have been so for more than five years.
ALL I AM SAYING IS WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. REASON WHY I LIKE IV OVER MURTHY. IMMIGRATION IS MURTHY'S PRIMARY BUSINESS .. IV IS DOING NOT FOR MONEY BUT TO REALLY FIX THINGS ... MUST MEAN SOMETHING RIGHT ... GO IV
-M
[uber]
03-11 10:39 PM
when is the poll gonna be set up?
more...
Appu
10-20 05:30 PM
The democrats will take the house by a very large majority and the senate by a less-than-60 vote majority. So if CIR makes a come back republicans will not be in a very strong position to strike a deal on high-skilled immigration. But there are a number of democrats who also support high-skilled immigration. People opposed to H1B and employment-based green card reforms are on both sides of the aisle (Dems Dick Durbin and Byron Dorgan, Republicans Jeff Sessions and Chuck Grassley for example) but hopefully they will remain a minority. It also looks like vocal supporters like Jon Cornyn will win re-election. But Pete Domenici is retiring. So, on the balance, there will be some change but not a drastic change on the legislative side.
Sen Obama is a very pragmatic and thoughtful person. You should know that he was co-sponsor of the PACE Act which, among other things, tried to create a F4 visa and make it very easy for STEM graduates to get green cards. There is absolutely no need to be panicked about a Obama win. Sen McCain, on the other hand, seems to have gone back on many of his immigration promises these last few months. It will be a concern if there is a democratic congress and McCain is in the White House.
Sen Obama is a very pragmatic and thoughtful person. You should know that he was co-sponsor of the PACE Act which, among other things, tried to create a F4 visa and make it very easy for STEM graduates to get green cards. There is absolutely no need to be panicked about a Obama win. Sen McCain, on the other hand, seems to have gone back on many of his immigration promises these last few months. It will be a concern if there is a democratic congress and McCain is in the White House.
2010 Oregon Ducks Cheerleaders
Ramba
07-14 06:52 PM
Suppose my employer had revoked the 140 application within 180 days. In that case should I receive a NOID instead of RFE now.
Yes. However, on the flip side, if the 140 withdrawel letter was dated within 180 days of 485 pending, your 485 will be denied no matter what RFE or NOID. Few good adjudicaters may send RFE in stead of NOID/direct denial.
Yes. However, on the flip side, if the 140 withdrawel letter was dated within 180 days of 485 pending, your 485 will be denied no matter what RFE or NOID. Few good adjudicaters may send RFE in stead of NOID/direct denial.
more...
hemal555
01-23 11:43 AM
Hi Varsha,
Is there any schedule for the ongoing conf call?
Also, please let me know if there are any guidelines about what we need to talk when calling senators.
Thanks,
Hemal
Is there any schedule for the ongoing conf call?
Also, please let me know if there are any guidelines about what we need to talk when calling senators.
Thanks,
Hemal
hair Oregon Ducks 2009 - Rose Bowl
BharatPremi
03-12 12:02 PM
I am worried about this financial reports. I am not sure many consulting companies will give those to employee who is leaving
Yes, I believe, most companies (new employers - mid level) would not even ask and if requested and you can not provide then generally they may not make a big deal but underlying result for asking is to check if financial strength is "Good" and I-140 is approved then no problem hiring an EAD holder.
Yes, I believe, most companies (new employers - mid level) would not even ask and if requested and you can not provide then generally they may not make a big deal but underlying result for asking is to check if financial strength is "Good" and I-140 is approved then no problem hiring an EAD holder.
more...
nyte_crawler
04-08 11:53 PM
What was his visa status ?
hot The OU Ducks take on the USC
ASR
06-06 05:13 PM
Mine is so similar to yours !! Jan 27 instead of Jan 29 and July 2 instead of Jul 13. VA instead of OH. Hope mine will get cleared soon. But God only knows when. :)
Mine is similar to you case, PD- Jan 23 2004, RD July 23 2007, ND Aug 24 2008
Do feel they go by processing times striclty?
Mine is similar to you case, PD- Jan 23 2004, RD July 23 2007, ND Aug 24 2008
Do feel they go by processing times striclty?
more...
house University of Oregon Ducks
priderock
06-22 04:39 PM
And wait for RFE.
USCIS is asking for COLOR copies of DL and passport.
Can you please point me to a link where USCIS asking for a color copy of DL and Passport? My lawyer did not even ask for copy of the DL and B/W copy of the passport was good enough.
USCIS is asking for COLOR copies of DL and passport.
Can you please point me to a link where USCIS asking for a color copy of DL and Passport? My lawyer did not even ask for copy of the DL and B/W copy of the passport was good enough.
tattoo The University of Oregon Ducks
GCNirvana007
10-10 01:33 PM
Just to avoid all this , You can say I'm a US citizen and move on. They cannot ask for any verification can they?
No how about carry the documents which is required by LAW rather your criminal suggestion?
Its simple, its LAW. They have clearly stated to carry. Just carry the damn documents and get over it. I see it amusing people whining about this. Its not like they are raping you. They are asking questions which they are entitled to. If someone crosses the line, then yes we can take it up on them.
No how about carry the documents which is required by LAW rather your criminal suggestion?
Its simple, its LAW. They have clearly stated to carry. Just carry the damn documents and get over it. I see it amusing people whining about this. Its not like they are raping you. They are asking questions which they are entitled to. If someone crosses the line, then yes we can take it up on them.
more...
pictures University of Oregon Ducks
psaxena
05-27 05:33 PM
I am really laughing.... very true, there are a lot of dumbs on this forum
The guy at Kino's was probably a dumb high school dropout and you have proved to be his match by posting it here....
The guy at Kino's was probably a dumb high school dropout and you have proved to be his match by posting it here....
dresses Nike Trainer 1 Oregon Ducks
chintu25
09-10 10:44 AM
I will update here for those who cannot enter chat
Right now they are discussing
H.R. 6598
the "Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008
I will update here once HR 5882 starts
Right now they are discussing
H.R. 6598
the "Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008
I will update here once HR 5882 starts
more...
makeup University of Oregon Ducks
richi121175
01-17 02:38 PM
Sent PM... and FYI... I am not a non-contributor as wellPlease send me a message if you have contributed. I don't want to any non-contrbuting members.... The day is not far when IV will have a cease operations due to non-contributing members. !!
ONE THING IS FOR SURE, EITHER IT'S THIS YEAR OR NEVER ....CHOICE IS YOURS
ONE THING IS FOR SURE, EITHER IT'S THIS YEAR OR NEVER ....CHOICE IS YOURS
girlfriend Oregon Ducks Green Nike T-
grinch
03-14 02:55 PM
I'm kind of dissapointed people are voting due to realistic proportions... I wanted people to vote on artistic show
hairstyles University of Oregon Ducks
ASR
06-06 05:14 PM
We got the "card production ordered" emails today. Here are our dates.
Labor Approved: 10/10/2006
I-140 AD: 11/27/2006
I-485 RD: 07/09/2007
EAD, AP: Sep/Oct 2007
RFE: 11/29/2007 Responded: 12/6/2007
LUD/AD: 6/6/2008 (Card Production Ordered)
Which service center are you form?
Labor Approved: 10/10/2006
I-140 AD: 11/27/2006
I-485 RD: 07/09/2007
EAD, AP: Sep/Oct 2007
RFE: 11/29/2007 Responded: 12/6/2007
LUD/AD: 6/6/2008 (Card Production Ordered)
Which service center are you form?
jkays94
07-10 02:39 AM
It seems several persons are already discrediting the lawsuit and from the comments I have seen, it is apparent that some have not read the entire complaint.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
ca_immigrant
07-13 11:18 AM
This is simply the explanation as to why will EB2 India get a huge number and not so much for EB2 China (so when year end statistics come out, there would not be too much noise about why EB2 India got several thousands of visa numbers more than any other category).
Indication that EB2 India will get huge numbers...this is just explanation as to why:)
be ready next month my friend.
-:)
Indication that EB2 India will get huge numbers...this is just explanation as to why:)
be ready next month my friend.
-:)