imneedy
04-10 10:28 AM
buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need
lol :d
lol :d
wallpaper funky short hair styles 2011
va_labor2002
07-25 07:08 AM
JCMenon,
I totally agree with your attitude and thinking. There is nothing wrong to request this issue to USCIS. It won't hurt us ! They will realize the magnitude of the issue and may do something to convinse the lawmakers.
We should definietly try this,even if the outcome may be failure !
Good Luck.
We can not file for 485 that is the reason we need to let our voices heard to USCIS, it may be waste of time for some one but at least it would be worth a try.
We did try a lot with S1932, outcome zero.
We did try a lot with CIR, outcome zero.
When so potentially yielding means(S 1932 and CIR) can fail in a same way USCIS option may also fail, but at least we know that we tried this option.
If stuck labor says it is a waste of time (No offence taken), I am not going to buy his arguement, just because he is a super moderator. maximun he can ban me from the site, but I donot worry of voicing my openion for an issue that I think might work out.
Lets do an openion poll and decide how many are in favor of this.
I totally agree with your attitude and thinking. There is nothing wrong to request this issue to USCIS. It won't hurt us ! They will realize the magnitude of the issue and may do something to convinse the lawmakers.
We should definietly try this,even if the outcome may be failure !
Good Luck.
We can not file for 485 that is the reason we need to let our voices heard to USCIS, it may be waste of time for some one but at least it would be worth a try.
We did try a lot with S1932, outcome zero.
We did try a lot with CIR, outcome zero.
When so potentially yielding means(S 1932 and CIR) can fail in a same way USCIS option may also fail, but at least we know that we tried this option.
If stuck labor says it is a waste of time (No offence taken), I am not going to buy his arguement, just because he is a super moderator. maximun he can ban me from the site, but I donot worry of voicing my openion for an issue that I think might work out.
Lets do an openion poll and decide how many are in favor of this.
pappu
02-11 08:44 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Good to see your post. :) Your posts are very helpful and educational to IV members Thank you.
If someone thinks visas are being wasted please send us the proof and IV will take action.
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Good to see your post. :) Your posts are very helpful and educational to IV members Thank you.
If someone thinks visas are being wasted please send us the proof and IV will take action.
2011 house Short Hairstyles Picture
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 12:50 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
more...
feedfront
09-14 04:04 PM
Please share your EVL, if possible.
alex99
04-03 12:56 PM
please participate
more...
vedicman
06-15 10:55 AM
Can IV as a non profit organization contribute to the campaigns of candidates running against senators like Grassley? If so IV should do it. We should defeat Senators like Grassley who do not care to understand the issues but just stick to dumb talking points. These senators just talk of foreign workers and how to stop them - not once do they initiate any bill that will actually make the US more competitive by investing in education (math and science specifically).
We will actually be doing a service to the American citizens by taking out dinosaurs like Grassley!! and also prevent frivolous bills that target high skilled immigrants!!
We will actually be doing a service to the American citizens by taking out dinosaurs like Grassley!! and also prevent frivolous bills that target high skilled immigrants!!
2010 funky hairstyles for long hair
Dhundhun
10-19 09:46 PM
Folks,
I was just looking at the Obama and McCain websites just to see how they look from design standpoint (I'm a UI designer by profession). I happened to read their views on Immigration. I was surprised to see that Obama's views were extremely vague and offered no solutions to retain or encourage highly skilled immigrant workers. McCain on the other hand has section on highly skilled immigrant workers and talks about retaining them after US education, H1B cap reform, greencard increase to reflect demand etc.
I heard them talking on same issue. Your findings are consistent with what ever I heard from their mouth.
Still it is hard to believe. Specially most of my GC holder friends have blind faith in Obama.
I was just looking at the Obama and McCain websites just to see how they look from design standpoint (I'm a UI designer by profession). I happened to read their views on Immigration. I was surprised to see that Obama's views were extremely vague and offered no solutions to retain or encourage highly skilled immigrant workers. McCain on the other hand has section on highly skilled immigrant workers and talks about retaining them after US education, H1B cap reform, greencard increase to reflect demand etc.
I heard them talking on same issue. Your findings are consistent with what ever I heard from their mouth.
Still it is hard to believe. Specially most of my GC holder friends have blind faith in Obama.
more...
ilikekilo
10-16 10:26 AM
U could get notarized at ur local banks or at ur work place if u ahve anyone who has a license
i believe you dont have to put in any recpt # 's just your name...
and also anyone knows the fax #??
i believe you dont have to put in any recpt # 's just your name...
and also anyone knows the fax #??
hair dresses funky hairstyles, long
niklshah
12-10 11:35 AM
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
there u go again... EB3 - EB2 crying continues.....from your post it looks that only EB3 is responsible for no forward movemant of EB2.. cool down dude thats not the only reason... be honest and tell in how many IV campaigns u have participated...? and also how many originally filled EB2 really deserve to file in EB3... I am pharmacist but we are in EB3 eventhough we required Pharm D now to get pharmacist license which is equivalent to phd.. so stop crying and start working on IV campaigns thats the only thing which will help..
there u go again... EB3 - EB2 crying continues.....from your post it looks that only EB3 is responsible for no forward movemant of EB2.. cool down dude thats not the only reason... be honest and tell in how many IV campaigns u have participated...? and also how many originally filled EB2 really deserve to file in EB3... I am pharmacist but we are in EB3 eventhough we required Pharm D now to get pharmacist license which is equivalent to phd.. so stop crying and start working on IV campaigns thats the only thing which will help..
more...
svr_76
06-10 12:45 PM
I dont want to undermine the need of the hour to contribute to IV/other efforts however-
From the content it appears the DHS secretary may not approve "a petition by an employer" for "any visa" authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification.
This means that H1B and I-140 filed by any employer cannot be approved if they have not provided written certification regarding Layoffs. This further enforce Labor Certification and clients who are laying offing citizen/perm and then replacing them with H1B holder.
EAD renewals are not "Visa" filed by employer that authorize employment. So I think that is excluded.
What this seems to target are companies that layoff existing US employee citizen and immidiately replace/hire ppl on H1B or file labor certification/I140 for others. (e.g. Microsoft other companies which are replacing existing employees with H1B - for lower pay?).
From the content it appears the DHS secretary may not approve "a petition by an employer" for "any visa" authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification.
This means that H1B and I-140 filed by any employer cannot be approved if they have not provided written certification regarding Layoffs. This further enforce Labor Certification and clients who are laying offing citizen/perm and then replacing them with H1B holder.
EAD renewals are not "Visa" filed by employer that authorize employment. So I think that is excluded.
What this seems to target are companies that layoff existing US employee citizen and immidiately replace/hire ppl on H1B or file labor certification/I140 for others. (e.g. Microsoft other companies which are replacing existing employees with H1B - for lower pay?).
hot 2011 womens short hair styles
Hermione
09-26 11:13 AM
No problem. I just wanted to encourage everyone with a strong feeling on H1 increase to post on the CNN site.
I'm sorry if I sounded like a hypocrite. My interpretation was not to participate in FSB debate for PR visas as the debate was concentrated on H1-B visas.
I support H1-B's and please continue in the debate for H1-B's.
I'm sorry if I sounded like a hypocrite. My interpretation was not to participate in FSB debate for PR visas as the debate was concentrated on H1-B visas.
I support H1-B's and please continue in the debate for H1-B's.
more...
house tattoo funky short hair styles
purplehazea
06-12 12:01 PM
just to let you know, even with PD current people have to wait 60-360 days for approval by service center.
You cannot imagine what will happen to processing efficiency at USCIS with additional work.
You cannot imagine what will happen to processing efficiency at USCIS with additional work.
tattoo 2010 funky hairstyles for long
Legal
07-20 10:38 PM
I'm having less and less faith in the claims made by members that USCIS is inefficient and clueless. ok, they have been and continue to be in many areas:):). However, they have a game plan this time. In retrospect, we know they had a game plan in June 07 also.
There are several unknown variables (repeatedly and extensively discussed here)which make accurate prediction impossible for us. However, USCIS has the numbers of RIPE CASES. And they moved the dates based on the availability of remaining GC numbers for this fiscal AND the ripe cases.
They could have moved it to just Dec 2005, instead they moved it all the way to June 2006.
Best\ optimistic scenario- Most EB-2-I cases upto June 2006 will be adjudicated before Oct 1st.
Conservative scenario-Upto at least Dec 2005 PD all cases will be adjudicated , and a few CP cases into early 2006 will be adjudicated. With spillovers happening in each quarter, the PD should continue to move.
There are several unknown variables (repeatedly and extensively discussed here)which make accurate prediction impossible for us. However, USCIS has the numbers of RIPE CASES. And they moved the dates based on the availability of remaining GC numbers for this fiscal AND the ripe cases.
They could have moved it to just Dec 2005, instead they moved it all the way to June 2006.
Best\ optimistic scenario- Most EB-2-I cases upto June 2006 will be adjudicated before Oct 1st.
Conservative scenario-Upto at least Dec 2005 PD all cases will be adjudicated , and a few CP cases into early 2006 will be adjudicated. With spillovers happening in each quarter, the PD should continue to move.
more...
pictures short spike hairstyles
natrajs
06-06 03:40 PM
We got the "welcome" and "card production ordered" email for my wife and I today too. It was a long frustrating wait at times but I am glad its over for us now. Our best wishes to those that are still waiting.
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
Congrats and Best Wishes
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
Congrats and Best Wishes
dresses hair Funky Short Haircuts
gimmeacard
07-13 05:08 PM
hoping we dont see another retrogression
more...
makeup Funky hair styles 2011 Google
ak27
01-19 09:21 PM
Hello Members,
I was able to attend Tri-State Con Call. These are actionable for us to increase IV membership and awareness..
1. Meet the law members compaign. List of Congress Members is below:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc&state=nj
2. Media Campaign: Contact major media outlets and try to publish stories about EB Green card issues.
3. Commercials in Theaters playing Hindi movies
4. Distribute flayers on NJ Transit Buses, Trains and Grocery Stores.
It is up to us to get these initiatives going as soon as we can.
I was able to attend Tri-State Con Call. These are actionable for us to increase IV membership and awareness..
1. Meet the law members compaign. List of Congress Members is below:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc&state=nj
2. Media Campaign: Contact major media outlets and try to publish stories about EB Green card issues.
3. Commercials in Theaters playing Hindi movies
4. Distribute flayers on NJ Transit Buses, Trains and Grocery Stores.
It is up to us to get these initiatives going as soon as we can.
girlfriend for short hair 2011. funky
delhiguy
07-09 03:43 PM
I was surprised to see that nowhere it was mentioned that USCIS processed 25k petitions over the weekend (or nearly 60k in 2 weeks) as reported by some USCIS officials last week and in many cases broke their own regulations by approving several cases with pending background/name checks. That definitely sounds to me like a conspiracy against July filers....In my view, that should have been one of the strongest points we can use against USCIS. I dont think we have a case against DOS as they had to revise the bulletin as USCIS requested more than available Visa numbers and exhausted the quota.....Even Dr. Rice made it clear in her NBC interview from the DOS perspective that revision of visa bulletin caused an "inconvenience" to the petitioners....
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
I dont think legally you can sue someone, because they have worked harder.
I posted this link , so that everybody may know the legal reasons, which we can be presented in a court of law.
If this lawsuit is accepted by the court , then the USCIS lawyers would tell what exactly happened.
I till now personally believe , that the USCIS/DOS hasnt broken any law.
They may have however changed a pettern,process , but no law has been broken.
hairstyles Funky Emo Hairstyles
chmur
09-11 03:04 PM
EB3-ROW Pending per Aug 2009 I-485 Inventory ~ 63K
The EB3-ROW Demand for October 2010 ~ 45K.
So actually backlog reduction for EB3 ROW has just been 18 K (much less than the 30K they should get). I don't see where you are seeing the overflow.
The total Pending in Aug 2009 was
EB2 ALL- 75K. EB3 all -151K . So total ~ 225K
The demand data today is EB2 = 34K(this is only I/C, no ROW demand)
Demand for EB3 = 136K.
So even though reduction in backlog is significant (225K- 170K =55K). It is not going to all categories evenly.
And unless USCIS comes up with a smarter way to determine demand data other than counting pending I-485, once this demand goes to zero they will have to advance EB2 I/C dates. Now they can be smart and advance it by 6 months to not open up floodgates and test the post 2007 demand, or just follow the rule blindly that supply > demand and the category is current. Either way, the law prevents any spillover from a category unless it is current and EB2 I/C is not getting current in 2-3 years.
I also want to believe like you that the hidden demand post 2007 for EB2I/C + EB3 ROW is as low as possible. And we won't know about the exact number till USCIS does a better job of reporting approved I-140 by country.
Check with latest Inventory data - 05/2010
Also - where can i get the demand data you are referring to ??
The EB3-ROW Demand for October 2010 ~ 45K.
So actually backlog reduction for EB3 ROW has just been 18 K (much less than the 30K they should get). I don't see where you are seeing the overflow.
The total Pending in Aug 2009 was
EB2 ALL- 75K. EB3 all -151K . So total ~ 225K
The demand data today is EB2 = 34K(this is only I/C, no ROW demand)
Demand for EB3 = 136K.
So even though reduction in backlog is significant (225K- 170K =55K). It is not going to all categories evenly.
And unless USCIS comes up with a smarter way to determine demand data other than counting pending I-485, once this demand goes to zero they will have to advance EB2 I/C dates. Now they can be smart and advance it by 6 months to not open up floodgates and test the post 2007 demand, or just follow the rule blindly that supply > demand and the category is current. Either way, the law prevents any spillover from a category unless it is current and EB2 I/C is not getting current in 2-3 years.
I also want to believe like you that the hidden demand post 2007 for EB2I/C + EB3 ROW is as low as possible. And we won't know about the exact number till USCIS does a better job of reporting approved I-140 by country.
Check with latest Inventory data - 05/2010
Also - where can i get the demand data you are referring to ??
WeldonSprings
10-15 02:12 PM
Can someone please direct me to the sample letter.
Thanks.
Thanks.
pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
0 comments:
Post a Comment