seahawks
07-25 01:47 AM
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
I concur, otherwise there won't be a IV forum or confusion and pain that everyone going through retrogession is facing, will we?
I concur, otherwise there won't be a IV forum or confusion and pain that everyone going through retrogession is facing, will we?
wallpaper Osho Quotes on Fear – The
grinch
03-04 03:21 PM
Yeah I've been working on my entry slowly, learning some new things I never knew.
Almost done!
Almost done!
thirdworldman
02-16 07:13 PM
Eilsoe, nice render! :worried:
2011 than fear-based
delax
07-14 07:39 PM
Yes. I VOLUNTARILY exclude myself from any such potential benefit.
BTW did you get a discount from Murthy for defending the firm on this website? Most of your posts are all about defending.
Great - You have your conscience to answer about excluding yourself - hopefully you will walk the talk - if not, so much for your commitment to "Gandhigiri".
And Oh! BTW I did not get a discount - but I atleast dont hurl allegations before I know the facts. Its a pity that you are missing the forest for the trees - I dont think I am defending anybody here. But just because Murthy Law Firm is more visible than a John Doe Law Office, does not make her more guilty or for that matter more innocent. She may be as guilty or as innocent as any other lawyer - her letter will only help not harm. If she takes undue credit for it "Gandhigiri" would require us to send her flowers - not hurl allegations.
Let us practice what we preach - or is the preaching only to show USCIS - since you have a vested interest there. Ask yourself this question. I dont need to tell you the answer. Cheers
BTW did you get a discount from Murthy for defending the firm on this website? Most of your posts are all about defending.
Great - You have your conscience to answer about excluding yourself - hopefully you will walk the talk - if not, so much for your commitment to "Gandhigiri".
And Oh! BTW I did not get a discount - but I atleast dont hurl allegations before I know the facts. Its a pity that you are missing the forest for the trees - I dont think I am defending anybody here. But just because Murthy Law Firm is more visible than a John Doe Law Office, does not make her more guilty or for that matter more innocent. She may be as guilty or as innocent as any other lawyer - her letter will only help not harm. If she takes undue credit for it "Gandhigiri" would require us to send her flowers - not hurl allegations.
Let us practice what we preach - or is the preaching only to show USCIS - since you have a vested interest there. Ask yourself this question. I dont need to tell you the answer. Cheers
more...
mbartosik
10-16 01:51 PM
U could get notarized at ur local banks or at ur work place if u ahve anyone who has a license
i believe you dont have to put in any recpt # 's just your name...
and also anyone knows the fax #??
I've already got my GC, but will file this.
Anybody can file a freedom of information act request. It is a general principle of democracy that the public needs to be in an informed position, and sunlight is the best disinfectant for government.
I think that the receipt number referred to is the FOIA receipt number that you will get back after sending this, not your AOS receipt number.
i believe you dont have to put in any recpt # 's just your name...
and also anyone knows the fax #??
I've already got my GC, but will file this.
Anybody can file a freedom of information act request. It is a general principle of democracy that the public needs to be in an informed position, and sunlight is the best disinfectant for government.
I think that the receipt number referred to is the FOIA receipt number that you will get back after sending this, not your AOS receipt number.
sunty
11-13 02:57 PM
Waiting for the January bulletin is good...The spillover "might" happen then. But we should prepare and be ready from our side, with letters, appointments with Congressmen/Senators etc., so that we can immediately start action once the Jan bulletin is out.
more...
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)).
2010 quotes on fear.
snathan
03-10 08:52 PM
All our applications are based on our Employment-- We are already employed and filed our petitions for legal permanent residency. How on earth would that affect the un-employment rate? We would continue to work in jobs in US until our I-485 gets approved. Just because delaying our approvals does not increase/decrease the un-employment rate. I am fully aware of the legislations introduced by the Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. There were too many legislative bills in her agenda.
We would succeed if we just focus a single item-- Visa Recapturing and NO other business.
By the way Mr.snathan, are you an administrative member of the IV team?.
You and I understand that we are already employed. Please check the Number USA site and tell me what common american people thinks about this.
We would succeed if we just focus a single item-- Visa Recapturing and NO other business.
By the way Mr.snathan, are you an administrative member of the IV team?.
You and I understand that we are already employed. Please check the Number USA site and tell me what common american people thinks about this.
more...
dilber
07-20 05:37 AM
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
hair Motivational Quote - I believe
NKR
02-20 03:17 PM
Thanks Googler. This wait for GC has made me forget the definition of patience :)
more...
decipher
04-23 04:16 PM
To be fair, inability to get educated (linked to career progression) deserves some attention.
I was in gautamagg's situation earlier (I am still kind of ). I believe there are several others in the same situation. GC delay is an serious hindrance when age is a factor for getting education. However, there are alternatives - part-time education and studying in another country. Have friends who have taken both the approaches. You can come back to the U.S (if you really need to) after your education/experience through H1 again.
As far as the U.S loosing talent, U.S legislators/administrators are the ones who should be worried and try to stop it. The coveted trying to convince them seems contradictory and doesn't gel well.
Personally, I think expecting a quick solution for the mired immigration issue to get an education is expecting a little too much when there are alternatives. This is a wrong forum to do it too.
I was in gautamagg's situation earlier (I am still kind of ). I believe there are several others in the same situation. GC delay is an serious hindrance when age is a factor for getting education. However, there are alternatives - part-time education and studying in another country. Have friends who have taken both the approaches. You can come back to the U.S (if you really need to) after your education/experience through H1 again.
As far as the U.S loosing talent, U.S legislators/administrators are the ones who should be worried and try to stop it. The coveted trying to convince them seems contradictory and doesn't gel well.
Personally, I think expecting a quick solution for the mired immigration issue to get an education is expecting a little too much when there are alternatives. This is a wrong forum to do it too.
hot Quotes: getting past fear
chetanjumani
04-23 11:03 PM
Congrats Googler.
Enjoy your GC
Enjoy your GC
more...
house quote fear is the thief of
desi3933
02-11 07:03 PM
Dude,
Calm down, PresidenO gave you good comment and you got carried away thinking that President Obama praise you. Just vent your frustration somewhere else.
PresidentO,
I saw your past comment and it seems like you have an Attitude problem.
If something your are not agree or disagree that's fine but there is now way to go this far.
Great!!
Now you have come down to personal attacks while conveniently chosen not to reply to this. Did you read that pdf document and if so, show me where you see 13,000 unused numbers?
Go for facts, not for fictional stories.
Read this
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
and tell us, where do you see 13,000 unused numbers?
Calm down, PresidenO gave you good comment and you got carried away thinking that President Obama praise you. Just vent your frustration somewhere else.
PresidentO,
I saw your past comment and it seems like you have an Attitude problem.
If something your are not agree or disagree that's fine but there is now way to go this far.
Great!!
Now you have come down to personal attacks while conveniently chosen not to reply to this. Did you read that pdf document and if so, show me where you see 13,000 unused numbers?
Go for facts, not for fictional stories.
Read this
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
and tell us, where do you see 13,000 unused numbers?
tattoo Dream, Fear Quotes
vijayassr
08-05 08:53 PM
Hi, Looks like you have a propabilities now.
1) If your H1 gets approved first before OCT'01st and your L1 does not approve, you should change to company B (who applied H1), if B applied your H1 with CHANGE OF STATUS (you will see new I-94 issued along with approval).
Good thing u can stay in country and work for B.
2) IF your H1 & L1 gets approved one after other in sequence, means first H1 then L1 then I think you are safe to work with company A without leaving country, Murthy.com says its the sequence that matters.
Check with Murthy.com attornies as well, but other Attorneys does not agree with them.It will be only problem when you apply GC, and not in mean while.
3)IF its L1 then H1,and if you want to work with company A, then you need to go out of country and get L1 stamped. Your H1 will remain avilable unless company B cancells it.
4) If your L1 gets approved and H1 gets problem(rejected I dont want this but if happens) then any how u can work for company A.
Hope the above things help.
Thanks
Vijay
1) If your H1 gets approved first before OCT'01st and your L1 does not approve, you should change to company B (who applied H1), if B applied your H1 with CHANGE OF STATUS (you will see new I-94 issued along with approval).
Good thing u can stay in country and work for B.
2) IF your H1 & L1 gets approved one after other in sequence, means first H1 then L1 then I think you are safe to work with company A without leaving country, Murthy.com says its the sequence that matters.
Check with Murthy.com attornies as well, but other Attorneys does not agree with them.It will be only problem when you apply GC, and not in mean while.
3)IF its L1 then H1,and if you want to work with company A, then you need to go out of country and get L1 stamped. Your H1 will remain avilable unless company B cancells it.
4) If your L1 gets approved and H1 gets problem(rejected I dont want this but if happens) then any how u can work for company A.
Hope the above things help.
Thanks
Vijay
more...
pictures a single man quotes fear
walking_dude
10-30 06:38 PM
Thanks for sending the FOIA letter. I don't get the not able to vote part! Every logged in IV member should be able to vote. Where you logged in?
I hope the 70 is not correct. I sent in the FOIA request (notarized) and also mobilized few of my friends. The number 70 is incorrect, because it does not allow me to vote there, otherwise I am sure it would be atleast 71.
I hope the 70 is not correct. I sent in the FOIA request (notarized) and also mobilized few of my friends. The number 70 is incorrect, because it does not allow me to vote there, otherwise I am sure it would be atleast 71.
dresses pictures quotes,words,fear
dilbert_cal
03-20 02:36 AM
Moral of this thread :-
All Desi Consulting companies are Fraud
which in turn implies
All Desis are Fraud. <---- Nope , Will Not say that because it includes Me :-)
alright, let me try again
All Consulting companies are Fraud <--- But hey there are so many which are not Fraud
Hmmmm, Confused. Alright, Did I hear there are exceptions. No, my dear. We got it the wrong way here. Fact is
Some Consulting Companies Do Subvert the Law and/or take Advantage of folks on H1. *
One or more of them are owned by Indians. ( commonly called desi by Indians )
One or more of them are not owned by Indians.
Where does the More End ? A small percentage, a big chunk, average ??? There is no study which has been done on the same. We all see it in the perception we hold. And when it comes to negativity, we tend to exaggerate. ( Or maybe we dont and I've a wrong perception )
* Non-consulting companies also do take advantage of H1b folks if possible - dont think I've to give examples of the same.
I dont work for a desi company. But I've quite a few friends who work for Desi firms - most of them are happy and have been treated nice and fair. A small number had issues. This is my experience. Certainly not something which makes me identify with the rest of the sentiments.
As per Logiclife, unpaid period on bench is a certainty. No my dear. Thats an exaggeration.
How many of us..................
Well, I thought of writing more but who am I telling this to and why ?
Rants over - time to get back to my life. I've got something else to finish which I know will bring me more flames but possibly help this organization too and that matters more. Flame me as much as you want to for being the odd man out in the thread ( there are others too - not that I'm the only one ) but possibly I wont even come back to this thread to read the flames :-)
All Desi Consulting companies are Fraud
which in turn implies
All Desis are Fraud. <---- Nope , Will Not say that because it includes Me :-)
alright, let me try again
All Consulting companies are Fraud <--- But hey there are so many which are not Fraud
Hmmmm, Confused. Alright, Did I hear there are exceptions. No, my dear. We got it the wrong way here. Fact is
Some Consulting Companies Do Subvert the Law and/or take Advantage of folks on H1. *
One or more of them are owned by Indians. ( commonly called desi by Indians )
One or more of them are not owned by Indians.
Where does the More End ? A small percentage, a big chunk, average ??? There is no study which has been done on the same. We all see it in the perception we hold. And when it comes to negativity, we tend to exaggerate. ( Or maybe we dont and I've a wrong perception )
* Non-consulting companies also do take advantage of H1b folks if possible - dont think I've to give examples of the same.
I dont work for a desi company. But I've quite a few friends who work for Desi firms - most of them are happy and have been treated nice and fair. A small number had issues. This is my experience. Certainly not something which makes me identify with the rest of the sentiments.
As per Logiclife, unpaid period on bench is a certainty. No my dear. Thats an exaggeration.
How many of us..................
Well, I thought of writing more but who am I telling this to and why ?
Rants over - time to get back to my life. I've got something else to finish which I know will bring me more flames but possibly help this organization too and that matters more. Flame me as much as you want to for being the odd man out in the thread ( there are others too - not that I'm the only one ) but possibly I wont even come back to this thread to read the flames :-)
more...
makeup Fear on Quotes
axp817
01-30 01:31 PM
Sorry to hear about your plight, what do you plan to do if the RFE is for employment verification?
Please do keep us updated, it will help other members in similar situations out, and you might find some useful advice as well.
Good luck.
Please do keep us updated, it will help other members in similar situations out, and you might find some useful advice as well.
Good luck.
girlfriend Quotes on Fear and Courage
vkrishn
07-16 11:32 AM
Don't know about his company...but the attorney definitely must be quite rich with all the legal charges :D
Its all about investing in the employee and has worked so far. ROI to the company is huge if the employee is taken care of (atleast on immigration issues). Employee can just concentrate on getting the job done and making sure the best products come out of the door on time to the end user making the company profitable.
My take: Money they spend on immigration issues (Law Firm, Renewals) should be peanuts to the profit the company makes.
Its all about investing in the employee and has worked so far. ROI to the company is huge if the employee is taken care of (atleast on immigration issues). Employee can just concentrate on getting the job done and making sure the best products come out of the door on time to the end user making the company profitable.
My take: Money they spend on immigration issues (Law Firm, Renewals) should be peanuts to the profit the company makes.
hairstyles Quote about fear | Quote by
iamgsprabhu
10-15 02:55 PM
Kindly download the Attached Doc.
nixstor
07-02 10:46 PM
Guys,
Below is what Rajiv Khanna thinks. You can find it on http://www.forclients.com/cmsd/node/81 . I am not trying to play spoil sport here. I feel that we should be working towards recapturing the unused visa numbers / being able to file for 485, instead of focusing on costly law suits, given that the chances of winning are slim. I hope that I will be proven wrong as Rajiv hopes. You might ask me about the chances of getting them recaptured. That might be slim as well, but that will get rid of the base problem which is retrogression, if at all we are successful. Just my thoughts. The last para of Rajiv's post summarizes very clearly why the court will dismiss the case, even if they find DOS & USCIS to be wrong. I can confidently tell you that USCIS is not going to give rejection notices to any one in the next 45 days. They know that the more they delay the rejection notices, the more the time it will take for plaintiffs to file a case. By that time the VB will come up with some dates instead of "U". As Rajiv said, there might have been many instances of these lawsuits in which USCIS got away. I doubt, if we can even touch the DOS on this because, CA/VO is just one part of DOS and DOS is too powerful to be touched
Q. Can we file a lawsuit?
A. Here is a legal answer as I see it. I hope I am proven wrong. I will elaborate further in our conference call. In my view, the lawsuit has a slim chance of succeess, but not in DC circuit. Our circuit is not likely to interfere with the exec easily. The strongest point is that govt. is changing a long standing practice, which requires rule-making under APA. The govt. will, of course, argue that they have issued amendments in the past and that this practice does not affect substantive rights. That would probably fly in the face of AC21 portability benefit which is, no doubt a substantive right.
Mootness is not a problem usually, because in a putative class action, we can always add more plaintiffs. Also, there are exceptions to mootness that could see a suit through.
I have not looked at the issues in great detail. Nevertheless, I think, the biggest problem is, if we dont get a hearing and an order within the month of July, the Court may have to dismiss the suit for inabaility to order relief (against the statute). This situation has occurred many, many times in the context of DV lottery cases.
Below is what Rajiv Khanna thinks. You can find it on http://www.forclients.com/cmsd/node/81 . I am not trying to play spoil sport here. I feel that we should be working towards recapturing the unused visa numbers / being able to file for 485, instead of focusing on costly law suits, given that the chances of winning are slim. I hope that I will be proven wrong as Rajiv hopes. You might ask me about the chances of getting them recaptured. That might be slim as well, but that will get rid of the base problem which is retrogression, if at all we are successful. Just my thoughts. The last para of Rajiv's post summarizes very clearly why the court will dismiss the case, even if they find DOS & USCIS to be wrong. I can confidently tell you that USCIS is not going to give rejection notices to any one in the next 45 days. They know that the more they delay the rejection notices, the more the time it will take for plaintiffs to file a case. By that time the VB will come up with some dates instead of "U". As Rajiv said, there might have been many instances of these lawsuits in which USCIS got away. I doubt, if we can even touch the DOS on this because, CA/VO is just one part of DOS and DOS is too powerful to be touched
Q. Can we file a lawsuit?
A. Here is a legal answer as I see it. I hope I am proven wrong. I will elaborate further in our conference call. In my view, the lawsuit has a slim chance of succeess, but not in DC circuit. Our circuit is not likely to interfere with the exec easily. The strongest point is that govt. is changing a long standing practice, which requires rule-making under APA. The govt. will, of course, argue that they have issued amendments in the past and that this practice does not affect substantive rights. That would probably fly in the face of AC21 portability benefit which is, no doubt a substantive right.
Mootness is not a problem usually, because in a putative class action, we can always add more plaintiffs. Also, there are exceptions to mootness that could see a suit through.
I have not looked at the issues in great detail. Nevertheless, I think, the biggest problem is, if we dont get a hearing and an order within the month of July, the Court may have to dismiss the suit for inabaility to order relief (against the statute). This situation has occurred many, many times in the context of DV lottery cases.
jungalee43
02-06 09:37 AM
Though I am posting very late, I fully agree with the intent of the thread starter. If there is anything that we can convince the "balanced" law makers, it is the discrimination based on country based quota.
A person with certain skill set brings same and equal benefits to this country. S/He is hired because the economy of this country needs him/her. Then why issue green card to one because s/he was born in XYZ country and why ask another to wait almost endlessly because s/he was born in ABC country. This is absurd, unjust, unfair and discriminatory, particularly considering the values that United States respects, believes in and follows.
We can sell only this one point to law makers. Selling an idea on how much benefits we bring to this country, and if we can buy homes with 20% down payment, is like waking up a person who is pretending to be asleep. They have decided not to buy that argument no matter what. And then there is Dick Durbyn, Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Steve King and many like them...............
A person with certain skill set brings same and equal benefits to this country. S/He is hired because the economy of this country needs him/her. Then why issue green card to one because s/he was born in XYZ country and why ask another to wait almost endlessly because s/he was born in ABC country. This is absurd, unjust, unfair and discriminatory, particularly considering the values that United States respects, believes in and follows.
We can sell only this one point to law makers. Selling an idea on how much benefits we bring to this country, and if we can buy homes with 20% down payment, is like waking up a person who is pretending to be asleep. They have decided not to buy that argument no matter what. And then there is Dick Durbyn, Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Steve King and many like them...............