desi3933
02-02 12:24 PM
I understand that you guys are frustrated but I did not open this thread to make empty noise. I have written to six different organisations and ACLJ only gave me a reply that they would be unable to process our per courntry quota lawsuit. There are thousands of federal court immigration lawyers in the country who would do this lawsuit albeit with more money than these non profit organisations. If any of you guys want to make a difference in your lives and lives of others pls co-ordinate this event of contacting various immigration lawyers.
Dear XXX:
Thank you for contacting the American Center for Law and Justice (AACLJ@). As you may know, the ACLJ is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law.
Our legal staff has reviewed the information which you provided, and we have determined that the ACLJ is unable to assist you at this time. While we sympathize with your dilemma, unfortunately, this case does not present an issue that the ACLJ can address on your behalf.
We appreciate your inquiry and hope that you will feel free to contact us in the future should the need arise. As for now, please understand that the ACLJ is not representing you in any legal matter.
Sincerely,
AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE
Read between the lines and this actually confirms what I am saying all along.
Equal Opportunity Law does not apply to Immigrant Visa allocation. And that's why any legal course does not have any solid base.
Equal Employment Opportunity applies only to applicants who are eligible to apply for that job. It does NOT apply to immigrant visa allocation and any other visa benefit such as H-1B approval.
In other words, Equal Employment Opportunity is applicable to US Citizens and residents with work authorization (Green Card holders, EAD holders, person with H-1B approved) and this is limited to job hiring, job promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment. This does not extend to immigration benefit or opportunity lost due to lack of immigration benefit (such as I-485 approval).
________________
Not a legal advice.
Dear XXX:
Thank you for contacting the American Center for Law and Justice (AACLJ@). As you may know, the ACLJ is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law.
Our legal staff has reviewed the information which you provided, and we have determined that the ACLJ is unable to assist you at this time. While we sympathize with your dilemma, unfortunately, this case does not present an issue that the ACLJ can address on your behalf.
We appreciate your inquiry and hope that you will feel free to contact us in the future should the need arise. As for now, please understand that the ACLJ is not representing you in any legal matter.
Sincerely,
AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE
Read between the lines and this actually confirms what I am saying all along.
Equal Opportunity Law does not apply to Immigrant Visa allocation. And that's why any legal course does not have any solid base.
Equal Employment Opportunity applies only to applicants who are eligible to apply for that job. It does NOT apply to immigrant visa allocation and any other visa benefit such as H-1B approval.
In other words, Equal Employment Opportunity is applicable to US Citizens and residents with work authorization (Green Card holders, EAD holders, person with H-1B approved) and this is limited to job hiring, job promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment. This does not extend to immigration benefit or opportunity lost due to lack of immigration benefit (such as I-485 approval).
________________
Not a legal advice.
wallpaper pics of music note tattoos.
stuck
09-20 01:13 AM
First of all I think logiclife will go in the history of immigration books as the movers that existed in this generation. I am amazed at how motivated the IV core team is and how smoothly they have organized the whole show so far.
I salute you. Hats off to you guys.
I read a lot of newspaper articles after the rally and they always seemed to mention that Indian and Chinese legal aliens protesting backlogs. I think there should be some effort to also include people from other nationalities such as Russians, Englishmen, Philipinos, Chinese and other nationalities. Now I know they are not hit as hard as us but they go thru some serious backlog as well if they are in the EB3 category.
Question is I am thinking how?
Any ideas guys?
I think IV is there for Green card issues.Please refrain from saying Englishmen, chinamen etc....,
I salute you. Hats off to you guys.
I read a lot of newspaper articles after the rally and they always seemed to mention that Indian and Chinese legal aliens protesting backlogs. I think there should be some effort to also include people from other nationalities such as Russians, Englishmen, Philipinos, Chinese and other nationalities. Now I know they are not hit as hard as us but they go thru some serious backlog as well if they are in the EB3 category.
Question is I am thinking how?
Any ideas guys?
I think IV is there for Green card issues.Please refrain from saying Englishmen, chinamen etc....,
dvb123
02-02 12:18 PM
There are around 400 immigration litigation lawyers. If 10 members can volunteer and send this template it can be done. I am in between projects and I cannot devote any more time for this. If anybody takes control of this thread and contacting the lawyers I would be most happiest person. Pls don't tell me that there are no leaders in this group of 25,000 people who can do this miniscule task of contacting 400 lawyers and co-ordinating with them.
http://www.ailalawyer.com/SearchResults.aspx?LanguageId=english&pid=326&Lang=99&miles=100
TEMPLATE LETTER
Sir/Madam,
We are a legal immigration association with more than 25,000 members in different visa statuses like H1-B etc. There is a per country quota which prevents any country from getting more than 9800 visas.
Visa Bulletin for February 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4611.html)
This effects permanent residency (both familty based and employment based)applicants from India, China, Mexico and Philippies only. For example an Indian engineer with a masters degree has to wait 7-8 years for his permanent residency while an engineer with a masters degree from Mauritius would get his green card immediately.
We would like to challenge this racist federal immigration law. We would greatly appreciate if your organisation can help us from doing so.
These are some of the facts from the basic legal research that I have done.
Different Supreme Court Decisions
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-righ...n-history.html
Gratz v. Bollinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. Regents that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment.[1
Bakke vs Regents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakke_v._Regents
Supreme Court Opinions
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment14/20.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment14/30.html
Articles
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...me-court_N.htm
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-e...against-racial
Thanks,
XXX
http://www.ailalawyer.com/SearchResults.aspx?LanguageId=english&pid=326&Lang=99&miles=100
TEMPLATE LETTER
Sir/Madam,
We are a legal immigration association with more than 25,000 members in different visa statuses like H1-B etc. There is a per country quota which prevents any country from getting more than 9800 visas.
Visa Bulletin for February 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4611.html)
This effects permanent residency (both familty based and employment based)applicants from India, China, Mexico and Philippies only. For example an Indian engineer with a masters degree has to wait 7-8 years for his permanent residency while an engineer with a masters degree from Mauritius would get his green card immediately.
We would like to challenge this racist federal immigration law. We would greatly appreciate if your organisation can help us from doing so.
These are some of the facts from the basic legal research that I have done.
Different Supreme Court Decisions
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-righ...n-history.html
Gratz v. Bollinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. Regents that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment.[1
Bakke vs Regents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakke_v._Regents
Supreme Court Opinions
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment14/20.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment14/30.html
Articles
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...me-court_N.htm
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-e...against-racial
Thanks,
XXX
2011 musical notes tattoo. musical
MLS
09-26 01:03 PM
Hi Nat,
I think it comes from Federal DOL. If your annual salary is below the salary DOL considers minimum then getting the "prevailing wagge info" from DOL helps to make sure your labor is not denied on basis of salary. If your salary is well above DOL's minimum wage then it not a must document.
I say this from what I remeber and my email trace shows me. But keep in mind for me this happened 6 years back so things might have changed.
I dont know how much of of those 6 months FDBL took and how much DOL.
However it makes sense to ask FDBL to keep yor other applications/ documents ready so when they hear back from DOL, your application is filed within a week or so. Ask them to give you list of all documents (birth date cert, university mark lists , referal letters etc that they will need in order to file your labor and 485 ) Sometimes coming up with those doecuments also takes a lot of time. May be you can get them ready while DOL responds.
I had been shy and did not follow through with them becuase I didnt want to be "pushy".
But I learned my lesson in GC that you muust followup on your application not by being "pushy" but politely and persistantly.
Having good relationship with your HR/ legal and manager is very crucial. As FDBL responds well to such authority figures.
All the best !
MLS
How long does it take to get the "prevailing wage info"? Does it come from State DOL or the Federal DOL?? I'm from Ohio
Thanks
Nat
I think it comes from Federal DOL. If your annual salary is below the salary DOL considers minimum then getting the "prevailing wagge info" from DOL helps to make sure your labor is not denied on basis of salary. If your salary is well above DOL's minimum wage then it not a must document.
I say this from what I remeber and my email trace shows me. But keep in mind for me this happened 6 years back so things might have changed.
I dont know how much of of those 6 months FDBL took and how much DOL.
However it makes sense to ask FDBL to keep yor other applications/ documents ready so when they hear back from DOL, your application is filed within a week or so. Ask them to give you list of all documents (birth date cert, university mark lists , referal letters etc that they will need in order to file your labor and 485 ) Sometimes coming up with those doecuments also takes a lot of time. May be you can get them ready while DOL responds.
I had been shy and did not follow through with them becuase I didnt want to be "pushy".
But I learned my lesson in GC that you muust followup on your application not by being "pushy" but politely and persistantly.
Having good relationship with your HR/ legal and manager is very crucial. As FDBL responds well to such authority figures.
All the best !
MLS
How long does it take to get the "prevailing wage info"? Does it come from State DOL or the Federal DOL?? I'm from Ohio
Thanks
Nat
more...
gk_2000
03-26 09:15 PM
Here I will summarize why we are unable to work with each another
Agreed 100% Porters will eat everything, there will be no movement.
By this and a later post MC is showing openly brazen attitude toward EB3 applicants. Such posts should be first of all, banned from IV and I am going to report all such posts.
Based on Visa Bulletin report, it seems like massive retrogression is likely for EB3 as well as EB2 :( for the rest of the year. Many have ported and some hibernating applications are now active. :(
You wouldn't show this :( expression if it were YOUR hibernating application. Also see if Mr. Nathan's comment below would apply to you
When I said that there should be one Item in IV agenda to Ban Porting, everyone got mad.
I still say that they should be allowed to port but should go back in line. they are disturbing the balance. I am not against them, if they were EB2 candidates why they didnt file on EB2 category at first, if now they think they are qualified then they should start new process.
BTW. they will create a big retrogression for EB2 then EB2 people have to port to EB3
Red dots are welcome.
Thanks
This is the brazen post I was talking about earlier. Even MC himself acknowledges that this post is "unhelpful", and he is deliberately doing this. This gives a negative impression of how serious this person is. I would urge him to buck up and learn to work with everyone, and quit watching "balance" from his sole viewpoint
I have done some study and can understand not many are porting. But there are few.
But if we raise our voice against porting, they will raise theirs with double the intensity against spillovers. So I dont think we should throw stones on their houses, when ours are made of glass. Moreoever if we see the statistics, there is a HUGE # of EB2 applicants in 2007 onwards I think. Unless we all act together, its not going anywhere.
I know many cases where newer applicants applied in EB2 and were much lesser in hierarchy than their bosses who are in EB3 and waiting. I think we must respect that, and more importantly as soon as raise our voice, they will not keep quite, right. You would also not keep quite if in their shoes.
Best will be if IV comes up with some programs to reduce this backlogs.
This is an "us vs them" argument. Not upto the standard desirable from IV point of view
People with EB3 applications should be allowed to port. But these should be EB3 applications which were genuinely applied and not substitute labor which opened during July 2007 fiasco.
Because a EB3 application with substitute labor in July 2007 has a priority date of 2002,2003,2004,2005 or even 2006. Where as a genuinely applied Eb2 prior to that, had the qualifications / job requirements before July 2007 and they are still waiting.
USCIS should realize their mistake in 2007, it encouraged a pay to play scheme, which is putting genuine people at great disadvantage.
Porting like any option was started with a good intention, but because of loop holes it has lost its meaning. There are people who landed in this country during the July 2007 fiasco, paid for the labor and have green cards in their hands now.
Or at least provide the same level of stringent requirements to port like (EB2-->EB1) . Technically a EB3 can port to EB1 also, but porting to EB2 is easier. That way Eb3's can consume Eb1 number and stop spill over to Eb2.
L1A is another one, where people qualify as global project managers with very minimal effort, could have less experience than a EB3 or in some cases they have reported to people in EB3 queue here from 2002 and are ahead of the EB3 within 6 months.
Understand the realities here: IV is struggling to make even the most legitimate views heard and you are sitting and talking away as if USCIS and lawmakers are your servant. Go for the ONE thing to wish for that will solve all troubles, because you have only one chance.
You wont talk about this crap/crab if you are on the receiving end.
Good dialogue. Ironic how it applies to so many posts here arguing in the opposite direction
The CRAB STORY also applies to EB3. Whenever somebody talks about spillover to EB2, all the EB3s are against spillover and making comments that it's not happening this year. It feels like EB3s do not want EB2s to get GCs. If porting is legit, then spillover is also legit and EB3s need to accept that.
Porting was always there and porting must not be more than 300/quarter this year (other wise EB2 PD dates would have retrogressed or gone back). Porting was not something started in FY2011 or FY2010. However, I do accept that the frequency of EB3-EB2 porting has increased slightly due to more US companies outsourcing IT jobs (bad economy -> more outsourcing to reduce costs{check the stock of CTSH!} -> demand for consultants -> resulting in firms like CTSH and small consulting companies agreeing to EB3-EB2 porting to keep talent). Outsourcing will not always result in all the US jobs to completely move to outsourced countries (I guess smart people in this forum already know that).
There will be spillover this year and EB2 PD reaching DEC 2006 by end of FY2011 is a real possiblity. There is no need for EB2s to get all worked up when somebody ports or EB3s to get worked up when somebody talks about spillover. There is GC pie for everybody. Just be patient or do something to solve fundamental problems with GC process ( by participating in IV campaign).
-CinBoy
"all the EB3s are against spillover and making comments that it's not happening this year. It feels like EB3s do not want EB2s to get GCs."
are you yourself convinced of this? I highly doubt.
Agreed 100% Porters will eat everything, there will be no movement.
By this and a later post MC is showing openly brazen attitude toward EB3 applicants. Such posts should be first of all, banned from IV and I am going to report all such posts.
Based on Visa Bulletin report, it seems like massive retrogression is likely for EB3 as well as EB2 :( for the rest of the year. Many have ported and some hibernating applications are now active. :(
You wouldn't show this :( expression if it were YOUR hibernating application. Also see if Mr. Nathan's comment below would apply to you
When I said that there should be one Item in IV agenda to Ban Porting, everyone got mad.
I still say that they should be allowed to port but should go back in line. they are disturbing the balance. I am not against them, if they were EB2 candidates why they didnt file on EB2 category at first, if now they think they are qualified then they should start new process.
BTW. they will create a big retrogression for EB2 then EB2 people have to port to EB3
Red dots are welcome.
Thanks
This is the brazen post I was talking about earlier. Even MC himself acknowledges that this post is "unhelpful", and he is deliberately doing this. This gives a negative impression of how serious this person is. I would urge him to buck up and learn to work with everyone, and quit watching "balance" from his sole viewpoint
I have done some study and can understand not many are porting. But there are few.
But if we raise our voice against porting, they will raise theirs with double the intensity against spillovers. So I dont think we should throw stones on their houses, when ours are made of glass. Moreoever if we see the statistics, there is a HUGE # of EB2 applicants in 2007 onwards I think. Unless we all act together, its not going anywhere.
I know many cases where newer applicants applied in EB2 and were much lesser in hierarchy than their bosses who are in EB3 and waiting. I think we must respect that, and more importantly as soon as raise our voice, they will not keep quite, right. You would also not keep quite if in their shoes.
Best will be if IV comes up with some programs to reduce this backlogs.
This is an "us vs them" argument. Not upto the standard desirable from IV point of view
People with EB3 applications should be allowed to port. But these should be EB3 applications which were genuinely applied and not substitute labor which opened during July 2007 fiasco.
Because a EB3 application with substitute labor in July 2007 has a priority date of 2002,2003,2004,2005 or even 2006. Where as a genuinely applied Eb2 prior to that, had the qualifications / job requirements before July 2007 and they are still waiting.
USCIS should realize their mistake in 2007, it encouraged a pay to play scheme, which is putting genuine people at great disadvantage.
Porting like any option was started with a good intention, but because of loop holes it has lost its meaning. There are people who landed in this country during the July 2007 fiasco, paid for the labor and have green cards in their hands now.
Or at least provide the same level of stringent requirements to port like (EB2-->EB1) . Technically a EB3 can port to EB1 also, but porting to EB2 is easier. That way Eb3's can consume Eb1 number and stop spill over to Eb2.
L1A is another one, where people qualify as global project managers with very minimal effort, could have less experience than a EB3 or in some cases they have reported to people in EB3 queue here from 2002 and are ahead of the EB3 within 6 months.
Understand the realities here: IV is struggling to make even the most legitimate views heard and you are sitting and talking away as if USCIS and lawmakers are your servant. Go for the ONE thing to wish for that will solve all troubles, because you have only one chance.
You wont talk about this crap/crab if you are on the receiving end.
Good dialogue. Ironic how it applies to so many posts here arguing in the opposite direction
The CRAB STORY also applies to EB3. Whenever somebody talks about spillover to EB2, all the EB3s are against spillover and making comments that it's not happening this year. It feels like EB3s do not want EB2s to get GCs. If porting is legit, then spillover is also legit and EB3s need to accept that.
Porting was always there and porting must not be more than 300/quarter this year (other wise EB2 PD dates would have retrogressed or gone back). Porting was not something started in FY2011 or FY2010. However, I do accept that the frequency of EB3-EB2 porting has increased slightly due to more US companies outsourcing IT jobs (bad economy -> more outsourcing to reduce costs{check the stock of CTSH!} -> demand for consultants -> resulting in firms like CTSH and small consulting companies agreeing to EB3-EB2 porting to keep talent). Outsourcing will not always result in all the US jobs to completely move to outsourced countries (I guess smart people in this forum already know that).
There will be spillover this year and EB2 PD reaching DEC 2006 by end of FY2011 is a real possiblity. There is no need for EB2s to get all worked up when somebody ports or EB3s to get worked up when somebody talks about spillover. There is GC pie for everybody. Just be patient or do something to solve fundamental problems with GC process ( by participating in IV campaign).
-CinBoy
"all the EB3s are against spillover and making comments that it's not happening this year. It feels like EB3s do not want EB2s to get GCs."
are you yourself convinced of this? I highly doubt.
chiecoli
02-13 01:40 PM
FACTORYMAN. It is clearly stated in the rules of the NVC visa bulletin that scheduled A nurses are entitled to up to 50,000 "recaptured " numbers.... AND SHEDULED A nurses and PT are the only two occupation on the SHORTAGE LIST of the DEPARTMENT OF STATE!!!!!
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second
preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Schedule A Workers: Employment First, Second, and Third preference Schedule A applicants are entitled to up to 50,000 �recaptured� numbers.
"if you can't be happy for others then you'll never be happy yourselves...your being self-righteous & "seem-to-know-it-all attitude" will get you nowhere..."
once again STOP ACTING like a CRAB!!!!!
nurses are not stealing the recaptured VISA those recaptured visa are specially alloted to them by the DEPARTMENT OF STATE!!!! cant you undestand simple and concrete rules!!!!!!!
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second
preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Schedule A Workers: Employment First, Second, and Third preference Schedule A applicants are entitled to up to 50,000 �recaptured� numbers.
"if you can't be happy for others then you'll never be happy yourselves...your being self-righteous & "seem-to-know-it-all attitude" will get you nowhere..."
once again STOP ACTING like a CRAB!!!!!
nurses are not stealing the recaptured VISA those recaptured visa are specially alloted to them by the DEPARTMENT OF STATE!!!! cant you undestand simple and concrete rules!!!!!!!
more...
Jaime
09-04 11:54 AM
Learn from MLK. He ended Opression. We can end Retrogression!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
2010 Tattoo with quot;music notesquot;
amitps
09-25 12:31 PM
I would expect a minimal level of service from an expensive lawyer whether my company or my wife's company or I myself pay for it. We are their client. That is what they do not understand.
Can you believe they took 10 days to inform us what docs we need to provide for the 485 filing even after the fact that we had called them the day in June when the priority dates became current. Even in the list of documents, they had "Certified Birth Certificate" and when we asked how do we get Certified, they were like oh just give a photocopy. We had already spent 3 days researching about this CERTIFIED BIRTH CERT. The certified concept is something which is not common in India but it is in USA and a company like Fragomen should know this - it is their job.
Even after HR's multiple emails approving to start the filing 15 days later they ask us if HR has approved this - RIDICULOUS.
We asked them for the copies of the filed petition, they took 1 month to provide them as they were TOO busy filing other applicants - fine but making copies and sending over should not take more than 20 mins.
Now, I have been asking for a receipt for the money I paid out of my pocket so that I can get it reimbursed from my employer, they are giving me a hard time.
All I expect is when we are paying so much money - they should provide services to us.
All I know is if I was providing this level of service to my client, I would have been fired, but given that in this process you get stuck with a lawyer and cannot do much about it....they are using it to their advantage which they should not be...
Can you believe they took 10 days to inform us what docs we need to provide for the 485 filing even after the fact that we had called them the day in June when the priority dates became current. Even in the list of documents, they had "Certified Birth Certificate" and when we asked how do we get Certified, they were like oh just give a photocopy. We had already spent 3 days researching about this CERTIFIED BIRTH CERT. The certified concept is something which is not common in India but it is in USA and a company like Fragomen should know this - it is their job.
Even after HR's multiple emails approving to start the filing 15 days later they ask us if HR has approved this - RIDICULOUS.
We asked them for the copies of the filed petition, they took 1 month to provide them as they were TOO busy filing other applicants - fine but making copies and sending over should not take more than 20 mins.
Now, I have been asking for a receipt for the money I paid out of my pocket so that I can get it reimbursed from my employer, they are giving me a hard time.
All I expect is when we are paying so much money - they should provide services to us.
All I know is if I was providing this level of service to my client, I would have been fired, but given that in this process you get stuck with a lawyer and cannot do much about it....they are using it to their advantage which they should not be...
more...
mshelat
05-28 01:56 PM
I agree ---- I think the momentum is slowing down...
at least can we not take any legal action for issuing out a rule (you can file MFS and get the stimuls and then amend MFJ) on 04/14/2008??? what about people who filed a long time ago as MFJ?? Because once you filed MFJ, the action is irrevocable!?! In my honest opinion, this stupidity of issuing out a clause the day before filing deadline deserves some "stir"!!
Any news?
at least can we not take any legal action for issuing out a rule (you can file MFS and get the stimuls and then amend MFJ) on 04/14/2008??? what about people who filed a long time ago as MFJ?? Because once you filed MFJ, the action is irrevocable!?! In my honest opinion, this stupidity of issuing out a clause the day before filing deadline deserves some "stir"!!
Any news?
hair music notes tattoo designs.
desi3933
01-13 01:07 PM
Would the employers exempt from "Immigration and Nationality Act" in any way?
I see so many job postings restricting with "US Citizens" only...
Civil Rights Divison Office of Special Counsel Did You Know Page (http://www.justice.gov/crt/osc/htm/engperliwdiss.php)
_________________
Not a legal advice.
I see so many job postings restricting with "US Citizens" only...
Civil Rights Divison Office of Special Counsel Did You Know Page (http://www.justice.gov/crt/osc/htm/engperliwdiss.php)
_________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
gandhig
02-07 01:55 PM
Sent two letters (my husband and me) yesterday to President and to IV. Will try to get a few more from friends.
hot music notes tattoos
GCwaitforever
06-26 02:10 PM
We need 15 more senators to switch to NO for this to fail (not just 5). There will not be another cloture. This cloture gives 30 hours of time to debate those 24 amendments. Then there will be a final vote for the bill with 50+ votes passing the bill. Remenber Dick Cheney, the tie breaker. So we ought to have 51 NO votes.
more...
house Music Tattoo
dskhabra
07-15 08:02 AM
Even mine is EB2 with level II. I did not see a single case from my company with Level III or Level IV but still a lot of them are EB2.
My 140 approval says: Mem of Profession w/Adv Deg, or Exceptional ability Sec 203 (b) (2).
My understanding: this is EB2.
My 140 approval says: Mem of Profession w/Adv Deg, or Exceptional ability Sec 203 (b) (2).
My understanding: this is EB2.
tattoo Right Ear Music Notes Tattoo
satishku_2000
07-06 12:29 AM
Well I filed under Rest of World" and EB2 back in August of 2006 when it was current for me (it�s always been current for me since then). I filed both my I-140 and I-485 together. I have done the fingerprinting etc and even replied to a RFE for my I-140 (well my company did). On June 1st I got my company to submit an "out of processing time" request which gives USCIS 45 days to come back with a decision or reason for not approving it. Now after all this fiasco my lawyer is telling me that my I-140 will continue as per usual (since it's not affected by all this) but my I-485 will not be approved until after October 1st. I don't agree with him, I believe part of the 60,000 visa numbers have been allocated to those that are pending and current (so they haven't been approved but have already been allocated). Does anyone agree or disagree?
Under normal scenario you have to wait until your 140 gets approved But during the past 12 days they could have approved your 140 just to approve your 485 tooo.. Keep checking your mail box every day and good luck;;;;:D :D :D
Under normal scenario you have to wait until your 140 gets approved But during the past 12 days they could have approved your 140 just to approve your 485 tooo.. Keep checking your mail box every day and good luck;;;;:D :D :D
more...
pictures Music Notes Tattoo
saimrathi
07-18 03:29 PM
Please close this thread... Someone wanted to apologize, they apologized... done deal... no point going on.. I have mentioned in my posts before that if you dont like someone or what they have to say add them to Ignore list, their posts wont show up while you are browsing threads... Lets keep the forum clean and informative... Thanks...
Most people showing their cool wisdom still not getting the point. A BEC person with Feb 2005 PD may not be able to file for another 2 years while a PD 2007 person will be enjoying EAD during that time. In my dictionary this is injustice. And that's why i was kinda happy when they updated the July bulletin, now I'm not really happy even if my company has already filed my 485/EAD on july 2. I'm still wishing (and i'll be honest) USCIS come up with a reason/regulation/rule that will delay EAD for everyone until BEC people are able to file 485 OR in Oct they retrogress only till March 2005.
P.S. if you are superstitious, you want to know this: most of my relatives/freinds call me "Black Tongue" because usually when i say something unpleasent it happens. e.g. i told my wife last month that i don't believe everyone is able to file 485, something will go wrong and everyone will be disappointed. (when everyone expects something it does not happen- contrarian theory)
Most people showing their cool wisdom still not getting the point. A BEC person with Feb 2005 PD may not be able to file for another 2 years while a PD 2007 person will be enjoying EAD during that time. In my dictionary this is injustice. And that's why i was kinda happy when they updated the July bulletin, now I'm not really happy even if my company has already filed my 485/EAD on july 2. I'm still wishing (and i'll be honest) USCIS come up with a reason/regulation/rule that will delay EAD for everyone until BEC people are able to file 485 OR in Oct they retrogress only till March 2005.
P.S. if you are superstitious, you want to know this: most of my relatives/freinds call me "Black Tongue" because usually when i say something unpleasent it happens. e.g. i told my wife last month that i don't believe everyone is able to file 485, something will go wrong and everyone will be disappointed. (when everyone expects something it does not happen- contrarian theory)
dresses music notes tattoo designs.
sirinme
05-25 11:13 AM
Via PayPal. Transaction ID: 9D075238PV915235L.
more...
makeup and music notes tattoos
logiclife
09-25 12:04 PM
Your rights as a participant of a bulletin board or online forum like Immigration Voice forums:
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED.
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED.
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
girlfriend My 3rd tattoo music notes. you
nixstor
03-22 10:12 AM
I am new to the site and have been reading these posts and I have very little knowledge regarding the greencard processing. But as far as I know, law is not clear in this matter and this results in different interpretations by different people. There is also little scope for any law suit as the State Dept is the ultimate decision maker in these issues. see section 202 of INA Act
"(B) 1/ Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed"
>> Good find. I havent noticed this. I will check this. This appears to be be granting immunity against law suits, if not, at least, weakens the claim of lawsuit <<
Also it is not clearly explained if EB categories take preference or country limits have preference over EB categories. The State Department can clearly argue that EB2 is entitled for 28.6% of total EB visas and per country limit does not apply as EB2 category still has unused visas left for use this quarter and they intend to maximize the use of total EB2 visas available. I think we should all stop arguing(because in the end it will not change a thing) about who should get the first chance at Green card and pray for all those friends who have been waiting for years and sincerely hope that their wait ends soon. Instead we should concentrate on how we can help each other and see about how we can improve the process
Initially my understanding was per country limits do not apply only in the final Quarter and PD trumps everything else. How ever, the snip from Nov05 VB says that AC21 modified this and unused visa numbers in any calendar Q can be assigned with out per country limits. You are exactly right. Some one in the line has to get out so that the line moves and people get ahead.
"(B) 1/ Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed"
>> Good find. I havent noticed this. I will check this. This appears to be be granting immunity against law suits, if not, at least, weakens the claim of lawsuit <<
Also it is not clearly explained if EB categories take preference or country limits have preference over EB categories. The State Department can clearly argue that EB2 is entitled for 28.6% of total EB visas and per country limit does not apply as EB2 category still has unused visas left for use this quarter and they intend to maximize the use of total EB2 visas available. I think we should all stop arguing(because in the end it will not change a thing) about who should get the first chance at Green card and pray for all those friends who have been waiting for years and sincerely hope that their wait ends soon. Instead we should concentrate on how we can help each other and see about how we can improve the process
Initially my understanding was per country limits do not apply only in the final Quarter and PD trumps everything else. How ever, the snip from Nov05 VB says that AC21 modified this and unused visa numbers in any calendar Q can be assigned with out per country limits. You are exactly right. Some one in the line has to get out so that the line moves and people get ahead.
hairstyles Musical Notes Symbol Tattoo
dixie
02-13 11:11 PM
This "anand" guy is a psuedonym for a Kim Berry crony for all we know.Old timers will notice that his distracting messages bear a striking resemblance to the folks who attacked IV core on the day of their CIR success. Such folks are not worthy of a personal response from IV core members - their time is too valuable for that. Hell, Roy Beck and Lou Foulmouth don't care to respond to our emails, do they ?
here4gc
08-01 04:52 PM
I don't know how many people know this, but I have worked with 3-4 different attorneys and I HIGHLY reccommend RAJIV S KHANNA.
Firstly, Rajiv reviews EACH & EVERY CASE!!!! - you find it hard to believe ? - no, its true, I spoke to the guy atleast 3-4 times. I had a question and i called the paralegal, she just heard me for 2 minutes and said, wait, I will get Rajiv on the phone and Voila - he spent like 45 minutes answering my every question.
I told him its a great relief to even talk to an attorney directly. Also, a little known fact is that apart from immigrationportal.com Rajiv has his own website for his clients, its a protected site and he answers every question himself, its not a complicated site like his portal, but real simple and nice. He does not overcharge, his staff worked weekend and nights to file my case. I was calling their office even on saturday at 8PM and have always been greeted with a smile and with extreme patience.
Every time i have left a message or sent an email, they have ALWAYS followed up, no matter what..it can't get better than this...
I have had horrible experiences with 2 other attorneys though..they even took my money and DID NOTHING..
Firstly, Rajiv reviews EACH & EVERY CASE!!!! - you find it hard to believe ? - no, its true, I spoke to the guy atleast 3-4 times. I had a question and i called the paralegal, she just heard me for 2 minutes and said, wait, I will get Rajiv on the phone and Voila - he spent like 45 minutes answering my every question.
I told him its a great relief to even talk to an attorney directly. Also, a little known fact is that apart from immigrationportal.com Rajiv has his own website for his clients, its a protected site and he answers every question himself, its not a complicated site like his portal, but real simple and nice. He does not overcharge, his staff worked weekend and nights to file my case. I was calling their office even on saturday at 8PM and have always been greeted with a smile and with extreme patience.
Every time i have left a message or sent an email, they have ALWAYS followed up, no matter what..it can't get better than this...
I have had horrible experiences with 2 other attorneys though..they even took my money and DID NOTHING..
gcbeku
06-11 02:46 PM
This is not just "frostrated" but silly socialist thinking too. What has "joining hands" or "new comers with fake experiences" got to do with porting.
If you can port, then just DO IT and spare yourself the pain.... why wait for "en masse transfer to EB2 by porting" or talk about "ethical reasons" and then lament after the fact ???
:confused:
I hate to say this and I hope I am wrong. All of us EB3 folks need to start speaking up or else our fate is sealed. I do not see any hopes of CIR passing. There is always going to be some political backlash due to the AMNESTY factor.
From what I have seen, most employers are now filing only in EB2 category. They know that filing in EB3 will see their applicants backlogged so severly that there is no hope in seeing their applications approved. So, even those with less than 5 years of experience create resumes that show 5 years to qualify for EB2. Imagine the flood of applicants in EB2 that will pour in when the dates move forward beyond July 2007. There will be a new backlog of EB2 numbers that we have to wait behind. When are we going to get our turn?
With nearly 10 years of experience and a master's degree, I am still languishing behind all these new comers who come here with fake experiences to qualify for EB2.
We EB3 folks need to speak up, and have the spill over given to the oldest filed applications IRRESPECTIVE of category. The spillover rules from what I know were defined at a later stage and not as per the original law. If we cannot get CIR passed nor a piecemeal regulation, at least let us get the spillover changed.
Or, let us en masse transfer to EB2 by porting, thereby making us all eligible for GC ahead of those that are coming in through the back door. I see them as no different from the undocumented immigrants. Breaking the ethical law at the expense of those of us who followed the law. Our positions did not require a Master's degree and I dont see why a programming position today still requires such. I also dont see why our experience today should not count towards qualifying for EB2.
I dont care what or how many reds the EB2 folks give, but the fact of the matter is that we EB3 must join hands.
If you can port, then just DO IT and spare yourself the pain.... why wait for "en masse transfer to EB2 by porting" or talk about "ethical reasons" and then lament after the fact ???
:confused:
I hate to say this and I hope I am wrong. All of us EB3 folks need to start speaking up or else our fate is sealed. I do not see any hopes of CIR passing. There is always going to be some political backlash due to the AMNESTY factor.
From what I have seen, most employers are now filing only in EB2 category. They know that filing in EB3 will see their applicants backlogged so severly that there is no hope in seeing their applications approved. So, even those with less than 5 years of experience create resumes that show 5 years to qualify for EB2. Imagine the flood of applicants in EB2 that will pour in when the dates move forward beyond July 2007. There will be a new backlog of EB2 numbers that we have to wait behind. When are we going to get our turn?
With nearly 10 years of experience and a master's degree, I am still languishing behind all these new comers who come here with fake experiences to qualify for EB2.
We EB3 folks need to speak up, and have the spill over given to the oldest filed applications IRRESPECTIVE of category. The spillover rules from what I know were defined at a later stage and not as per the original law. If we cannot get CIR passed nor a piecemeal regulation, at least let us get the spillover changed.
Or, let us en masse transfer to EB2 by porting, thereby making us all eligible for GC ahead of those that are coming in through the back door. I see them as no different from the undocumented immigrants. Breaking the ethical law at the expense of those of us who followed the law. Our positions did not require a Master's degree and I dont see why a programming position today still requires such. I also dont see why our experience today should not count towards qualifying for EB2.
I dont care what or how many reds the EB2 folks give, but the fact of the matter is that we EB3 must join hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment