485Mbe4001
10-17 11:13 AM
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=285400
October 16, 2007 Contact: Press Office
Phone: 202.228.3685
Senate Approves Levin Amendment to Improve Oversight of FBI
Background Checks
WASHINGTON � The Senate has approved an amendment by Sen. Carl
Levin, D-Mich., to improve oversight of the FBI National Name Check
Program, which faces a substantial backlog. The program is used to
run background checks on people applying for immigration benefits or
seeking employment with the U.S. government, among many other
purposes. Levin's provision, which was included as an amendment to
the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) Fiscal Year 2008
Appropriations Bill, would require the FBI to report to Congress
every year regarding progress made in improving the FBI's system of
processing background checks and automating investigative files.
"The background check program's enormous backlog poses an
unacceptable burden on people whose lives are on hold, and it also
leads to a national security risk," Levin said. "Approximately
31,000 cases have been pending for at least 33 months. If these
individuals are a security threat, we must know that sooner rather
than later."
According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Ombudsman's 2007 Annual Report, there were 329,160 name check cases
pending in May 2007, which is and increase of 93,358 over the
previous year. Many immigrants who are applying for adjustment of
status to legal permanent resident, naturalization, asylum, or a
waiver end up waiting for months or years for the completion of the
name check process.
In 2003, Robert J. Garrity, Jr., then Acting Assistant Director of
the Records Management Division of the FBI stated before the House
Committee on Government Reform that, "[t]he name check delays have
significant consequences to FBI customers and stakeholders. The
delays impede hiring or clearing skilled workers; completing
government contracts; student enrollment, and�clearing requested
visas for business visits to the United States. More importantly
than all of the foregoing, these processing delays can also diminish
counterterrorism effectiveness."
October 16, 2007 Contact: Press Office
Phone: 202.228.3685
Senate Approves Levin Amendment to Improve Oversight of FBI
Background Checks
WASHINGTON � The Senate has approved an amendment by Sen. Carl
Levin, D-Mich., to improve oversight of the FBI National Name Check
Program, which faces a substantial backlog. The program is used to
run background checks on people applying for immigration benefits or
seeking employment with the U.S. government, among many other
purposes. Levin's provision, which was included as an amendment to
the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) Fiscal Year 2008
Appropriations Bill, would require the FBI to report to Congress
every year regarding progress made in improving the FBI's system of
processing background checks and automating investigative files.
"The background check program's enormous backlog poses an
unacceptable burden on people whose lives are on hold, and it also
leads to a national security risk," Levin said. "Approximately
31,000 cases have been pending for at least 33 months. If these
individuals are a security threat, we must know that sooner rather
than later."
According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Ombudsman's 2007 Annual Report, there were 329,160 name check cases
pending in May 2007, which is and increase of 93,358 over the
previous year. Many immigrants who are applying for adjustment of
status to legal permanent resident, naturalization, asylum, or a
waiver end up waiting for months or years for the completion of the
name check process.
In 2003, Robert J. Garrity, Jr., then Acting Assistant Director of
the Records Management Division of the FBI stated before the House
Committee on Government Reform that, "[t]he name check delays have
significant consequences to FBI customers and stakeholders. The
delays impede hiring or clearing skilled workers; completing
government contracts; student enrollment, and�clearing requested
visas for business visits to the United States. More importantly
than all of the foregoing, these processing delays can also diminish
counterterrorism effectiveness."
wallpaper londe hair on guys.
jimytomy
04-19 10:37 AM
Jimmy,
Did you change employer when you ported from eb3 to eb2, or stayed with the same employer?
- 2004 filed for Labor and started EB3 process.
- Company got acquired in later years . Filed new I140 ( I think it is called successor-in-interest)
- Recently started fresh EB2 process for interfiling of EB3 to EB2 . GC approved.
Thanks,
Jimytomy
Did you change employer when you ported from eb3 to eb2, or stayed with the same employer?
- 2004 filed for Labor and started EB3 process.
- Company got acquired in later years . Filed new I140 ( I think it is called successor-in-interest)
- Recently started fresh EB2 process for interfiling of EB3 to EB2 . GC approved.
Thanks,
Jimytomy
neverbefore
10-30 03:03 AM
Congratulations to all you guys who have got their 485s approved. It is great to hear the stories of old times from people like alterego.
Wishing everyone the best. May happiness visit all of us here and not just through and because of green card
Wishing everyone the best. May happiness visit all of us here and not just through and because of green card
2011 londe hair on guys. bleach
485Mbe4001
05-26 06:05 PM
IMO standalone bills like these have little chance of passing. This is just a placeholder so that its text can be used in the CIR. Such bills are used to gauge the public reaction and the senates direction on the issue. The bill needs a companion bill from the house which will be difficult considering the composition of the house. In the coming months you will see many immigration related bills being introduced. We can always hope and write a letter to the senators about this bill, it has a better chance if there are more co sponsors.
As prof Wadhwa mentioned the best option for us is to write to the lawmakers outlining our issue, education is the key. i write to my senators and congressman every 3-4 months (no email). You will always get a reply to your letter, sometimes the reply is not relevant to the issue you have mentioned:rolleyes: but every bit helps...I hope each member writes a letter, numbers generally make an impact.
As prof Wadhwa mentioned the best option for us is to write to the lawmakers outlining our issue, education is the key. i write to my senators and congressman every 3-4 months (no email). You will always get a reply to your letter, sometimes the reply is not relevant to the issue you have mentioned:rolleyes: but every bit helps...I hope each member writes a letter, numbers generally make an impact.
more...
sanjaymm
11-04 07:46 AM
done
gk_2000
04-22 07:54 PM
Ok. But how does this apply to immigration?
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
There are far too many points here to address at one go. Let me touch upon this for starters:
The Article 1, Section 8 has this clause, regarding the power of congress:
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Are we disputing the fact that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
No. We are not. We are just saying, that the current Rule of Naturalization is in violation of the discrimination clause in the constitution, and ought to be disregarded. We are not asking to strip congress of this power, so this argument you make is not relevant. Agreed?
More later ..
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
There are far too many points here to address at one go. Let me touch upon this for starters:
The Article 1, Section 8 has this clause, regarding the power of congress:
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Are we disputing the fact that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
No. We are not. We are just saying, that the current Rule of Naturalization is in violation of the discrimination clause in the constitution, and ought to be disregarded. We are not asking to strip congress of this power, so this argument you make is not relevant. Agreed?
More later ..
more...
no538
07-11 10:45 PM
story/rumor was that only Texas center was holding off application...is Nebraska doing that too?
My attorney said that he received my I-485 application back from Nebraska service center on the 9th statting that priority date is not current.
My application is I-140 PP(EB3 to EB2 (Nov 2003)PD transfer)+I-485.
I've got the receipt for I-140 and my application was received by USCIS on June 29th.
I think my case is different and they would have got confused with everything going on and just returned the application.
My attorney sent the packet back to USCIS saying that my PD is current in June with the PD Transfer and that they should accept it.
I'll update with whatever happens.
Cheers,
Raghu
My attorney said that he received my I-485 application back from Nebraska service center on the 9th statting that priority date is not current.
My application is I-140 PP(EB3 to EB2 (Nov 2003)PD transfer)+I-485.
I've got the receipt for I-140 and my application was received by USCIS on June 29th.
I think my case is different and they would have got confused with everything going on and just returned the application.
My attorney sent the packet back to USCIS saying that my PD is current in June with the PD Transfer and that they should accept it.
I'll update with whatever happens.
Cheers,
Raghu
2010 Popular oys#39; hairstyles
pappu
07-01 08:26 PM
We do see such threads on the forum occasionally where the employee is being cheated/asked to sign a contract/is not being paid on bench/employer is threatening etc etc... There are several instances where members have posted negative comments about consulting companies and how employees are unhappy working for them.
Is this really true?
I want to understand the reasons why people are not filing lawsuits against such companies yet? Why are we not reporting them to DOL and USCIS? Especially after filing I485 and expiry of 6 months, people are in a better position to file lawsuits against such employers.
IV can help only if people are willing to be helped and ready to take action.
If this system needs to be cleansed, then why aren't we doing it?
Let me tell you one thing, "You've got guts, buddy", Congrats on the bold move. not many people dare to do that.
Can he do so? - Theoratically yes, practically: highly unlikely.
if he is a typical consulting guy with less than 50 emps, he won't do it, because such employers almost always make "adjustments" that puts them in extremely weak spot during such law suits. here are some examples:
- a guy was laid off, his new employer sent him on a project even before filing for his H1 transfer
-many consulting companies do not pay salary while the guy is on "bench"
- they many times knowingly/unknowingly commit tax/accounting fraud or regulatory mistakes that can cause serius consequences
- a friend of mine was interrviewed by a client and when the result was positive, his new would be employer called him at a McDonalds and asked him to sign the contract right there (within 30 minute of meeting), and my friend did. Now most people won't see anything wrong in here. but a lawyer told me that my friend was not given enough time to read/understand a legal document and to talk to a lawyer ideally enough time is about 2 weeks. How many small consulting companies give 2 weeks when the interview at client is clear?
In your case, the end client is not your employer's client. Ask him to show the contract between him and the end client.
bottom line of the story is: there are many defenses that one can play and win the case and/or even put the employer in trouble. That's why most small employers don't do much beyond sending a lawyer's notice (just to scare you enough to write down a check). A real nasty guy can even go one step further and file a law suit only to withdraw it later if you decide to fiight it.
Good luck buddy!
Is this really true?
I want to understand the reasons why people are not filing lawsuits against such companies yet? Why are we not reporting them to DOL and USCIS? Especially after filing I485 and expiry of 6 months, people are in a better position to file lawsuits against such employers.
IV can help only if people are willing to be helped and ready to take action.
If this system needs to be cleansed, then why aren't we doing it?
Let me tell you one thing, "You've got guts, buddy", Congrats on the bold move. not many people dare to do that.
Can he do so? - Theoratically yes, practically: highly unlikely.
if he is a typical consulting guy with less than 50 emps, he won't do it, because such employers almost always make "adjustments" that puts them in extremely weak spot during such law suits. here are some examples:
- a guy was laid off, his new employer sent him on a project even before filing for his H1 transfer
-many consulting companies do not pay salary while the guy is on "bench"
- they many times knowingly/unknowingly commit tax/accounting fraud or regulatory mistakes that can cause serius consequences
- a friend of mine was interrviewed by a client and when the result was positive, his new would be employer called him at a McDonalds and asked him to sign the contract right there (within 30 minute of meeting), and my friend did. Now most people won't see anything wrong in here. but a lawyer told me that my friend was not given enough time to read/understand a legal document and to talk to a lawyer ideally enough time is about 2 weeks. How many small consulting companies give 2 weeks when the interview at client is clear?
In your case, the end client is not your employer's client. Ask him to show the contract between him and the end client.
bottom line of the story is: there are many defenses that one can play and win the case and/or even put the employer in trouble. That's why most small employers don't do much beyond sending a lawyer's notice (just to scare you enough to write down a check). A real nasty guy can even go one step further and file a law suit only to withdraw it later if you decide to fiight it.
Good luck buddy!
more...
santb1975
01-30 08:48 PM
We will get a lot of coverage if this actually gets asked
hair Chad Michael Murray Cool Men
Refugee_New
08-26 10:41 AM
ICICI can not predict rather no one can predict what will be the exchange rate tomorrow. The minimum forex transaction at dealer level is for $1 mil. So, they can't promise you some rate the moment you hit the submit button. They will pool all the transactions like yours and then do a big contract together. ICICI provides lot of other services which SBI will not in terms of convenience. And ICICI deals big time in forex transactions. In this market the guy with biggest transactions will have lowest cost and depending on competition will have incentive to pass it on to you as an end user. They might time it within a particular time frame but that is something unavoidable.
Oh really? do you think so? RBI controls the exchange rate. You know who control RBI? Banks like ICICI and big corporate companies like RIL etc and other biggies and also big IT comps.
Oh really? do you think so? RBI controls the exchange rate. You know who control RBI? Banks like ICICI and big corporate companies like RIL etc and other biggies and also big IT comps.
more...
Hope_GC
07-15 07:08 PM
pmb76,
I agree with you we are at least not turning blind eye on this kinda false propagandas.
Fight for truth is a difficult thing but when fought with full enthu you will see the results(what ever they might be something positive).
I don't know what this petition is going to do. Atleast it will convey to CNN top brass that there are people out there who won't tolerate such lies. Maybe it won't do anything now but we must continue our efforts and oppose such false propagation of information whenever we can.
I agree with you we are at least not turning blind eye on this kinda false propagandas.
Fight for truth is a difficult thing but when fought with full enthu you will see the results(what ever they might be something positive).
I don't know what this petition is going to do. Atleast it will convey to CNN top brass that there are people out there who won't tolerate such lies. Maybe it won't do anything now but we must continue our efforts and oppose such false propagation of information whenever we can.
hot Black Men With Blonde Hair
neel_gump
04-12 11:18 AM
Just send my $100 contribution
more...
house londe hair on guys. guys long
logiclife
06-07 11:31 AM
I dont work for consultant and yet I relocated last year. I admit its less frequent when you work directly for a company. I work longer hours not because I am told to, but it makes me feel more secure in my job by doing so and by making myself more useful than neccesary. WHy? coz I cannot change employer and keep my greencard process intact and continual. Its has to be started from scratch. Not affordable. Hence the longer hours. Is it forced? No. Is it fair. Absolutely not.
Finding a local to marry is not an option. Why? Firstly, many of us are already married. Secondly and more importantly, if you marry a local with the intention of obtaining immigration benefits, you are breaking the law. I dont mean to say that marrying a local is wrong, but it is illegal if you are doing it only for immigration benefits resulting from marrying a citizen and you could lose that greencard if things go haywire. To quote Shushterman, an immigration lawyer and former USCIS employee: If you are caught doing something illegal by USCIS, you are better off robbing a liquor store than marrying a local with intention of greencard. USCIS may pardon you if you robbed a liquor store, and still give your greencard but not if you married a citizen with intention of immigration benefits.
Now, coming to rights and privileges, privileges wouldnt exist unless you had the rights. Privileges granted by Government to public are based on rights. There are some things that the seeker calls rights and the person who grants them calls them privileges. If you want to be forceful, you have to call it a right, not a privileges. We call "Human rights" rights for a reason and not "Human privileges". See, privileges imply a hand-out. Rights imply justice. There is a difference between hand-out and justice.
Finding a local to marry is not an option. Why? Firstly, many of us are already married. Secondly and more importantly, if you marry a local with the intention of obtaining immigration benefits, you are breaking the law. I dont mean to say that marrying a local is wrong, but it is illegal if you are doing it only for immigration benefits resulting from marrying a citizen and you could lose that greencard if things go haywire. To quote Shushterman, an immigration lawyer and former USCIS employee: If you are caught doing something illegal by USCIS, you are better off robbing a liquor store than marrying a local with intention of greencard. USCIS may pardon you if you robbed a liquor store, and still give your greencard but not if you married a citizen with intention of immigration benefits.
Now, coming to rights and privileges, privileges wouldnt exist unless you had the rights. Privileges granted by Government to public are based on rights. There are some things that the seeker calls rights and the person who grants them calls them privileges. If you want to be forceful, you have to call it a right, not a privileges. We call "Human rights" rights for a reason and not "Human privileges". See, privileges imply a hand-out. Rights imply justice. There is a difference between hand-out and justice.
tattoo i like guys who have londe
chanduv23
02-01 12:58 PM
Consulting companies bring physicians to the US annd place them for research and observerships, these candidates while doing research, do their USMLE and when they get a residency transfer h1b.
I have seen newspaper advertisements in India inviting MBBS doctors for these jobs
I have seen newspaper advertisements in India inviting MBBS doctors for these jobs
more...
pictures cute guys with londe hair
REEF�
06-19 12:40 PM
magic
dresses Blonde Hair Emo Boys.
gagbag
07-11 12:53 PM
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0710-lee.shtm
Is Money Behind USCIS Move To Have Department Of State Take Unprecedented Action To "Update" July Visa Chart?
by Alan Lee, Esq.
Was the Department of State's unprecedented action on July 2, 2007, issuing an "Update on July Visa Availability" closing off visa availability for the rest of the fiscal year for employment based cases and essentially gutting its July visa bulletin (which opened the employment based categories EB-1 through EB-3 for adjustment of status applications) all about the money with U.S.C.I.S. in the role of culprit? We believe the answer unfortunately is "yes" and reflects U.S.C.I.S.'s desperate desire to grab its huge future fee increase from individuals that it saw slipping through its fingers. U.S.C.I.S. undoubtedly perceived its expected windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars through its outlandish July 30th increase in fees for petitions and applications (average increase 66%) threatened by the July visa chart which would allow many employment based individuals and their families to beat the fee increases. A typical family of four (husband, wife, child aged 16 and the other 12) applying for adjustment of status currently pays $1,605 to U.S.C.I.S. (including I-140 charge). That same family on and after July 30th would pay $4,105, an increase of $2,500, or 255%. If one multiplies those figures by at least 100,000 ( $250 million difference),[1] one can imagine the explosive temper of top U.S.C.I.S. officials when they saw the Visa Office July chart. U.S.C.I.S. has made no bones that it is depending upon the fee increases to fund its proposed systems and structures for the 21st century.
The Visa Office made it clear through the updating of the visa bulletin that its update was only because of U.S.C.I.S. action using the phrases "The sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices during the past month....", and "As a result of this unexpected action....." The Visa Office cited these efforts as resulting in the use of almost 60,000 employment numbers. It is also clear that the Visa Office had no wish to defend U.S.C.I.S. when it issued its update on July 2nd. Whether it retains its stance in the future of washing its hands and pointing the finger at U.S.C.I.S. remains to be seen in light of probable Administration pressure to spin the story in a more positive light to the government as this Administration has exhibited a continual attitude of "soaking" immigrants, legal or otherwise ( $25,000+ for a family of four to immigrate under the recent fallen Senate bill ( See our article, "$10,000 Required For Earned Legalization and Adjustment Under the Secure Borders, Employment Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act", http://www.alanleelaw.com/english/articles/a2007-05-26.htm), which figure was modified from the earlier Administration proposal of $82,000+ ( See our article, "Mr. Lee's Comment to March 28, 2007 White House Immigration Reform Proposal - Z Visas", http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/digest/2007,0403.shtm in "LETTERS" section), the passed amendment to S. 1639 raising H-1B surcharge fees to $5,000 on top of the fraud ($500) and filing ($190) fees, and the rapacious July 30th U.S.C.I.S. fee increase). The author recalls his telephone conversation with Charlie Oppenheim, the chief of immigrant visa control and reporting, Visa Office, in December 2004 concerning the 101,000 "pool numbers", in which Mr. Oppenheim gave no credence to U.S.C.I.S. figures that the agency had cleared over 100,000 cases (including dependents) between April and November. (The exact differential was 115,000 cases, a rate of about 16,400 per month). The author has no knowledge of the exact number of cases that U.S.C.I.S. claimed to close in June for the State Department to announce that almost 60,000 employment numbers were used (employment based immigrant visa numbers are also requested by U.S. consulates and embassies), but notes that the vast majority of employment based cases are with aliens in the States who adjust status here rather than consular processing their cases. If U.S.C.I.S. claimed to clear anywhere in the area of 40,000-50,000 cases last month, that number for one month is difficult if not incredulous to believe, and if true would have involved massive shifts of U.S.C.I.S. personnel from other responsibilities to comb through and adjudicate all files of persons eligible to immigrate through employment, or less than careful consideration of the cases. Hopefully the agency was not in such a desperate state as to cut corners to endanger our national security if it was the latter case.
The facts and the legality of U.S.C.I.S.'s actions will undoubtedly be the subject of multiple lawsuits. However this turns out, the agency and the Administration will wind up with less respect than before. This Administration needs all the good publicity that it can muster in light of its unpopular Iraq war and recent actions freeing Scooter Libby (not even Paris Hilton avoided imprisonment) and supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and creating further public mistrust of the justice system even after confirmation that he and other White House aides politicized the selection of United States Attorneys. Unless U.S.C.I.S. and the Visa Office can change course, this episode will unfortunately become a black eye to all parties as further facts emerge in the coming days.
Is Money Behind USCIS Move To Have Department Of State Take Unprecedented Action To "Update" July Visa Chart?
by Alan Lee, Esq.
Was the Department of State's unprecedented action on July 2, 2007, issuing an "Update on July Visa Availability" closing off visa availability for the rest of the fiscal year for employment based cases and essentially gutting its July visa bulletin (which opened the employment based categories EB-1 through EB-3 for adjustment of status applications) all about the money with U.S.C.I.S. in the role of culprit? We believe the answer unfortunately is "yes" and reflects U.S.C.I.S.'s desperate desire to grab its huge future fee increase from individuals that it saw slipping through its fingers. U.S.C.I.S. undoubtedly perceived its expected windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars through its outlandish July 30th increase in fees for petitions and applications (average increase 66%) threatened by the July visa chart which would allow many employment based individuals and their families to beat the fee increases. A typical family of four (husband, wife, child aged 16 and the other 12) applying for adjustment of status currently pays $1,605 to U.S.C.I.S. (including I-140 charge). That same family on and after July 30th would pay $4,105, an increase of $2,500, or 255%. If one multiplies those figures by at least 100,000 ( $250 million difference),[1] one can imagine the explosive temper of top U.S.C.I.S. officials when they saw the Visa Office July chart. U.S.C.I.S. has made no bones that it is depending upon the fee increases to fund its proposed systems and structures for the 21st century.
The Visa Office made it clear through the updating of the visa bulletin that its update was only because of U.S.C.I.S. action using the phrases "The sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices during the past month....", and "As a result of this unexpected action....." The Visa Office cited these efforts as resulting in the use of almost 60,000 employment numbers. It is also clear that the Visa Office had no wish to defend U.S.C.I.S. when it issued its update on July 2nd. Whether it retains its stance in the future of washing its hands and pointing the finger at U.S.C.I.S. remains to be seen in light of probable Administration pressure to spin the story in a more positive light to the government as this Administration has exhibited a continual attitude of "soaking" immigrants, legal or otherwise ( $25,000+ for a family of four to immigrate under the recent fallen Senate bill ( See our article, "$10,000 Required For Earned Legalization and Adjustment Under the Secure Borders, Employment Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act", http://www.alanleelaw.com/english/articles/a2007-05-26.htm), which figure was modified from the earlier Administration proposal of $82,000+ ( See our article, "Mr. Lee's Comment to March 28, 2007 White House Immigration Reform Proposal - Z Visas", http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/digest/2007,0403.shtm in "LETTERS" section), the passed amendment to S. 1639 raising H-1B surcharge fees to $5,000 on top of the fraud ($500) and filing ($190) fees, and the rapacious July 30th U.S.C.I.S. fee increase). The author recalls his telephone conversation with Charlie Oppenheim, the chief of immigrant visa control and reporting, Visa Office, in December 2004 concerning the 101,000 "pool numbers", in which Mr. Oppenheim gave no credence to U.S.C.I.S. figures that the agency had cleared over 100,000 cases (including dependents) between April and November. (The exact differential was 115,000 cases, a rate of about 16,400 per month). The author has no knowledge of the exact number of cases that U.S.C.I.S. claimed to close in June for the State Department to announce that almost 60,000 employment numbers were used (employment based immigrant visa numbers are also requested by U.S. consulates and embassies), but notes that the vast majority of employment based cases are with aliens in the States who adjust status here rather than consular processing their cases. If U.S.C.I.S. claimed to clear anywhere in the area of 40,000-50,000 cases last month, that number for one month is difficult if not incredulous to believe, and if true would have involved massive shifts of U.S.C.I.S. personnel from other responsibilities to comb through and adjudicate all files of persons eligible to immigrate through employment, or less than careful consideration of the cases. Hopefully the agency was not in such a desperate state as to cut corners to endanger our national security if it was the latter case.
The facts and the legality of U.S.C.I.S.'s actions will undoubtedly be the subject of multiple lawsuits. However this turns out, the agency and the Administration will wind up with less respect than before. This Administration needs all the good publicity that it can muster in light of its unpopular Iraq war and recent actions freeing Scooter Libby (not even Paris Hilton avoided imprisonment) and supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and creating further public mistrust of the justice system even after confirmation that he and other White House aides politicized the selection of United States Attorneys. Unless U.S.C.I.S. and the Visa Office can change course, this episode will unfortunately become a black eye to all parties as further facts emerge in the coming days.
more...
makeup londe hair on guys. Blonde
YesGC_NoGC
10-03 03:33 PM
If you have health insurance (which I doubt) go to some doc. and get some life injected. That will certainly help you in your current situation and you may be able to jump to EB1.:D
May God Bless You.
EB2 india/china... see this..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21828
and then see this
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21833
ab bajao ghanti... aur chup chap baithe raho
(translation: sit there like a paraplegic in the line and do nothing ... while a massive line jumping is in process... you will keep seeing while all these EB3 "bodyshopped consultants" will continue to slowly port their PDs and get approved ahead of you.. EB2 I/C is in for a really really long wait.
Honestly, these consultants don't even have an H1B worthy job: its not a permanent job offer. They don't get paid fulltime. Let alone their eligibility for a GC ....what a scam!
We need to let uscis know and audit all current and past approved cases from these consultants)
FYI ...With support from a few people .. we are in the process of filing a Direct injunction for stoppage and immediate audit of interfiled/approved cases. But more support would be appreciated.
May God Bless You.
EB2 india/china... see this..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21828
and then see this
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21833
ab bajao ghanti... aur chup chap baithe raho
(translation: sit there like a paraplegic in the line and do nothing ... while a massive line jumping is in process... you will keep seeing while all these EB3 "bodyshopped consultants" will continue to slowly port their PDs and get approved ahead of you.. EB2 I/C is in for a really really long wait.
Honestly, these consultants don't even have an H1B worthy job: its not a permanent job offer. They don't get paid fulltime. Let alone their eligibility for a GC ....what a scam!
We need to let uscis know and audit all current and past approved cases from these consultants)
FYI ...With support from a few people .. we are in the process of filing a Direct injunction for stoppage and immediate audit of interfiled/approved cases. But more support would be appreciated.
girlfriend Do you guys use Kayak
immique
06-11 10:50 PM
I disagree with the earlier comment. I don't agree that any one(including EB3) lost due to July 2007 visa bulletin. sure it was haphazard by the way it was handled, but thousands of well qualified applicants from many retrogressed countries had a chance to file their I 485 and were able to obtain well deserved benefits like EAD, AP or themselves and their dependants which thy have been denied for many yearsdue to the inefficient processing of various agencies. people have to realize that all of us are in the same boat and most of the people getting unfair treatment are from the retrogressed countries waiting for their green cards for 8-9 years
hairstyles emo londe hair guys
rustamehind
07-11 11:19 AM
"My company lawyer says that we have the option of filing the adjustment of status on our own and company won't support it.Its not about money , its just that they don't want to support filings after the revised July bulletin.
They are also saying we should wait for October bulletin , but don't want to predict how much the priority dates are going to shift."
It all adds to more confusion & chaos.The more questions you ask, the more confused you get.:D
They are also saying we should wait for October bulletin , but don't want to predict how much the priority dates are going to shift."
It all adds to more confusion & chaos.The more questions you ask, the more confused you get.:D
chanduv23
03-22 11:21 AM
>> AC21 memo is a real memo.
Wow, what an ignorance. May I ask, what do you mean by "real memo".
Read previous post and get enlightened. I can't believe that you guys even don't have distinctions about law, CFR, and memos.
AC-21 is law.
Hope it helps.
________________
Not a legal advice.
Correct. It is a bill that was signed into a law. Though USCIS follows AC21 in form of Memos, the law is binding and that's why we see that AC21 always works . It cannot be compared to the new h1b memo.
Wow, what an ignorance. May I ask, what do you mean by "real memo".
Read previous post and get enlightened. I can't believe that you guys even don't have distinctions about law, CFR, and memos.
AC-21 is law.
Hope it helps.
________________
Not a legal advice.
Correct. It is a bill that was signed into a law. Though USCIS follows AC21 in form of Memos, the law is binding and that's why we see that AC21 always works . It cannot be compared to the new h1b memo.
hope4gc
01-22 11:41 AM
Smisachu,
One more question for now
Do i need to apparoach an immigration lawyer and a CPA for setting up a company?
I have PMed you with some questions you have asked
Thanks
One more question for now
Do i need to apparoach an immigration lawyer and a CPA for setting up a company?
I have PMed you with some questions you have asked
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment