psaxena
12-15 11:29 AM
Please don't think as if the IV guys walk in and talk and there you go.... the change is in effect.
It takes a lot to get the fixes like these.
Moreover , do not donate with the "IF" condition. Just donate and trust IV , everyone is working as hard ,to get the relief in any way possible for the guys in the line.
SO JUST DON'T WAIT AND START DONATING.
Thanks to IV for that ..
But the word "later" seems to be very distant, not just for us. but for the dependents too
I believe this is administrative fix at least pre filing . This is more acheivable
It takes a lot to get the fixes like these.
Moreover , do not donate with the "IF" condition. Just donate and trust IV , everyone is working as hard ,to get the relief in any way possible for the guys in the line.
SO JUST DON'T WAIT AND START DONATING.
Thanks to IV for that ..
But the word "later" seems to be very distant, not just for us. but for the dependents too
I believe this is administrative fix at least pre filing . This is more acheivable
wallpaper Buy Natasha Bedingfield Album
chi_shark
06-11 12:14 PM
Hmm... so whats stopping you from making 80-100 an hour on contracting now? do you have EAD?
It is not a big deal dude...if not for this immigration system, we could be making even more..think about $80-$100/hr if you are an independent contractor. This a minimum for a decent contract with vendor directly.
And if you have ~100-200K for investments, with some experience and any luck..you could be making another 100K out of it from trading and active investing in other areas. That comes to ~250-300K minimum. There are no bounds when life is free and in this great country. Unfortunately, things have turned discriminative and our potentials are being restricted(atleast for non-EAD guys) and you have to be prepared for getting outright kicked out of this country.
It is not a big deal dude...if not for this immigration system, we could be making even more..think about $80-$100/hr if you are an independent contractor. This a minimum for a decent contract with vendor directly.
And if you have ~100-200K for investments, with some experience and any luck..you could be making another 100K out of it from trading and active investing in other areas. That comes to ~250-300K minimum. There are no bounds when life is free and in this great country. Unfortunately, things have turned discriminative and our potentials are being restricted(atleast for non-EAD guys) and you have to be prepared for getting outright kicked out of this country.
desi485
11-24 05:34 PM
I left my GC sponser employer 3 months ago and joined new employer on EAD. I spoke to the new company's attorney to file H1B after 2 months of joining. She said that since I have completed 6 years of my H1B so it does not matter if I am on H1B or on EAD as none of them will provide safety net if something goes wrong on 485. Suddenly, after 15 days, I got an email from my Lawyers's office saying that my new company has given permission to them to apply a H1B extn for me and asked me to send the required docs. I am not sure what prompted them to apply my H1B as I had already given up H1B thing and was happy with EAD. I dont know, it might be something to do with charging fee from my new employer or something. Bottomline is no one knows about it and may be even USCIS might not have this scenario in their rule book.
One more thing, in one of the conversations with my new attorney, she mentioned that I can still work on EAD if 485 gets denied because of AC21 reason and MTR has been sent. She said, unless, 485 is denied because of some criminal reason, u can continue working during the MTR period. so another twist??
The lawyer I am working with also said the same thing. If 485 is denied in error (whatever is the reason, AC21 or not), one can file MTR and also continue working on EAD. Since the 485 was denied in error, the employment while MTR is being filed, pending will NOT be counted as unauthorised employment. If you read RG forums, he gave exact similar opinion.
I agree with Chandu, we should try to get this from CIS. Just don't know how:(
One more thing, in one of the conversations with my new attorney, she mentioned that I can still work on EAD if 485 gets denied because of AC21 reason and MTR has been sent. She said, unless, 485 is denied because of some criminal reason, u can continue working during the MTR period. so another twist??
The lawyer I am working with also said the same thing. If 485 is denied in error (whatever is the reason, AC21 or not), one can file MTR and also continue working on EAD. Since the 485 was denied in error, the employment while MTR is being filed, pending will NOT be counted as unauthorised employment. If you read RG forums, he gave exact similar opinion.
I agree with Chandu, we should try to get this from CIS. Just don't know how:(
2011 Photo Natasha Bedingfield
ras
10-16 05:47 PM
Added some missing in's and to's, etc. if it appears appropriate, you may keep the changes.
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
kalinga_sena
04-30 02:59 PM
Aytes is talking about transformation program...
apb
09-12 05:18 PM
Bumping
more...
hopefulgc
08-13 04:54 PM
moderators,
please close this thread.
please close this thread.
2010 Natasha Bedingfield - Strip Me
cheg
07-21 05:23 PM
count me in...i live in Murrieta, CA.:)
more...
skv
06-22 11:18 AM
Mine is filed on May 14th at Atlanta :-(. My employer told me that off late it's taking anywhere between 90 to 120 days.
But I hope I can beat this time after 5 long years. :-)
Cheer up guys, nothing to gain being sad. :-)
But I hope I can beat this time after 5 long years. :-)
Cheer up guys, nothing to gain being sad. :-)
hair “Strip Me” is a song performed
milind70
07-11 10:41 AM
GREAT NEWS...
but why is USCIS website not showing Aug bulletin ?
The reason for this is that Mumbai is 12 hours ahead in time of US. Please wait till today evening , the same will be reflected on DOS website. We have seen before that the VB bulletin cut off dates released earlier on US consulate websites in India than on the DOS websites in US
but why is USCIS website not showing Aug bulletin ?
The reason for this is that Mumbai is 12 hours ahead in time of US. Please wait till today evening , the same will be reflected on DOS website. We have seen before that the VB bulletin cut off dates released earlier on US consulate websites in India than on the DOS websites in US
more...
new2gc
07-15 05:43 PM
From Me and my wife...
BoA - Billpay
immigration voice IV $ 10.00 07/22/2008 7YFQ6-LGYBR
BoA - Billpay
immigration voice IV $ 10.00 07/22/2008 7YFQ6-LGYBR
hot Natasha Bedingfield Strip Me
mita
09-10 12:35 PM
USCIS takes two steps(2 years) forward than takes three steps(3 years) backwards. When it takes forward steps, it confuses everybody by it's stupidness of approving later PD cases and than moves backwards after realizing it's blunder. In this whole process, we spend time analyzing, debating, chatting on what USCIS will do next but they throw all our logic out the window and go their own way. This whole process sucks!!!!
You see in the real world everything moved 1 year ahead from October 2007 to October 2008. So in USCIS world also it moved by 1year.
You see in the real world everything moved 1 year ahead from October 2007 to October 2008. So in USCIS world also it moved by 1year.
more...
house Natasha Bedingfield - Strip Me
prakashv44
01-07 12:17 PM
Just send your I-140 approved docs to the bank. I got the approval with my I-140 itself
tattoo Natasha Bedingfield may only
sri1309
08-13 07:45 PM
Guys,
We saw the September bulletin..
We knew what to expect..
But we were all a little hopeful to see some miracle happen.
And we were doing this every month.
NOW comes the count down we all were waiting for the last few months. Oct bulletin. In that, most of us are expecting some good news.. But what if it moves 3 months forward.. What if it moves 2 years forward. Then it will stop there for next 1 year, while we check every month.. Then it moves back.. Do we want this..
Its not going to make much difference to most of us here.
THIS IS THE TIME TO ACT NOW. We must all do some campaign may be flowers, may be cards, or I donno.
I have written today to all the six members or reps to help us, but a bunch of mails will not help. JUst imagine if all the people in waiting sent the letters. Imagine 100,000 mails going to each of them, or 100,000 flower bouquets going to all.
Please please, lets act now. These small fixes cannot help us. If they want to put any quota limit, that should be at the main entry level whatever the non-immigrant category. Not at the other point when people start applying for GCs and suffocate here. We dont deserve this.
Please Lets act now., ONce again.. We did it in the past and it helped..
We need to do it again... Together we can do it. Together ONLY we can do it..
EB2 guys and others who got approved.. Please dont forget what you went thru. Please put more efforts and help all in case you can .
Sri.
We saw the September bulletin..
We knew what to expect..
But we were all a little hopeful to see some miracle happen.
And we were doing this every month.
NOW comes the count down we all were waiting for the last few months. Oct bulletin. In that, most of us are expecting some good news.. But what if it moves 3 months forward.. What if it moves 2 years forward. Then it will stop there for next 1 year, while we check every month.. Then it moves back.. Do we want this..
Its not going to make much difference to most of us here.
THIS IS THE TIME TO ACT NOW. We must all do some campaign may be flowers, may be cards, or I donno.
I have written today to all the six members or reps to help us, but a bunch of mails will not help. JUst imagine if all the people in waiting sent the letters. Imagine 100,000 mails going to each of them, or 100,000 flower bouquets going to all.
Please please, lets act now. These small fixes cannot help us. If they want to put any quota limit, that should be at the main entry level whatever the non-immigrant category. Not at the other point when people start applying for GCs and suffocate here. We dont deserve this.
Please Lets act now., ONce again.. We did it in the past and it helped..
We need to do it again... Together we can do it. Together ONLY we can do it..
EB2 guys and others who got approved.. Please dont forget what you went thru. Please put more efforts and help all in case you can .
Sri.
more...
pictures Natasha Bedingfield - Strip Me
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
dresses Title Of Album: Strip Me Away
GOTGC
07-24 02:22 PM
Visa number is differnt from A #- which is application number.
Law allows only 140,000 EB visas per year, which are again subject to country quotas,EB categories etc
Every 485 approval uses a Visa number.
So for 485 approval there should be a visa number available.
In last quarter of every year, USCIS can approve 485s irrespective of country limits inorder to use up all visa numbers.
That is what happened in June/July and happening now- Inorder to exhaust remaning 60K visas for yr 2007, USCIS assigned a visa number to pending 485's before approving them.(Tons of approvals coming from NSC and TSC are for cases that had visa number preassigned before July 2nd Visa bulletein revision)
Law allows only 140,000 EB visas per year, which are again subject to country quotas,EB categories etc
Every 485 approval uses a Visa number.
So for 485 approval there should be a visa number available.
In last quarter of every year, USCIS can approve 485s irrespective of country limits inorder to use up all visa numbers.
That is what happened in June/July and happening now- Inorder to exhaust remaning 60K visas for yr 2007, USCIS assigned a visa number to pending 485's before approving them.(Tons of approvals coming from NSC and TSC are for cases that had visa number preassigned before July 2nd Visa bulletein revision)
more...
makeup Natasha Bedingfield - Strip Me
hariswaminathan
03-05 03:08 AM
I hate to be the one to throw cold water on this - i dont believe its anything worth writing home about - I dont believe its really "pre-adjudication" for something exciting looming but IOs finally reaching the backlog of cases which they are supposed to as normal course of action to varify all the information pertaining to each case is correct and issue RFEs for missing bits. Dont forget last year they were all diverted to GC2Citizen cases because of voting bank pressure and coupled with July 2007 filers there was a huge backlog of cases just left pending.
Generally Numbers dont lie (except Satyam) and I havent heard anything in Congress that may be remotely close to passing that may change the landscape for EB folks and therefore am guessing that they have not really been intimated on any urgent action to be done within next few months for something looming.
Generally Numbers dont lie (except Satyam) and I havent heard anything in Congress that may be remotely close to passing that may change the landscape for EB folks and therefore am guessing that they have not really been intimated on any urgent action to be done within next few months for something looming.
girlfriend Natasha Bedingfield - Strip Me
coolpal
02-04 12:25 PM
My wife has H1B processed in maiden name -(i 797, i-94, stamping). she recently changed her maiden name to married name. she changed her name in SSN and Passport. DMV in NJ are asking to change the name in immigration office. We spoke to the immigration authority and they say there are no relevant forms to make the name change. If anybody have solution let me know.
Explain to the DMV about this... and try not to go on a weekend. They are extremely busy on weekends are easily irritated. Find them when they are relatively calm and free...
pal :)
Explain to the DMV about this... and try not to go on a weekend. They are extremely busy on weekends are easily irritated. Find them when they are relatively calm and free...
pal :)
hairstyles Natasha Bedingfield - Strip Me
imv116
07-15 09:08 PM
We can request participation from other ethnic organizations, but that would be minimal unless they are victims of July VB bulletin.
If the cause was overall legal immigration, certainly we can request/demand such participation.
-imv116
If the cause was overall legal immigration, certainly we can request/demand such participation.
-imv116
plreddy
07-14 02:43 PM
Bank Of America Bill Pay Confirmation Number: 7YB5R-TV1TL for $ 5.00.
new_horizon
05-04 12:41 PM
Called all Senators in Tier 1
Scott Brown - Will pass message. Initially confused with illegal immigration which the senator is against.
Judd Gregg - Will pass message
Richard Lugar - Supports high skilled provisions
Michael Enzi - Will pas message. Does not know the position.
Lindsey Graham - Left message
John Ensign - Senator opposes CIR. But will convey message re. our provisions.
Orin Hatch - Left message
John Cornyn - Will pass message. No position yet
John Kyl - Will pass message
Mitch Mcconnel - Will pass message. No position yet.
Amy Klobuchar - Will pass message. No position yet.
Claire McCaskill - Left message.
Jon Tester - Will pass message. No position yet.
Jim Webb - Will pass message. No position yet.
Sheldon Whitehouse - Will pass message. Reviewing the bill.
Scott Brown - Will pass message. Initially confused with illegal immigration which the senator is against.
Judd Gregg - Will pass message
Richard Lugar - Supports high skilled provisions
Michael Enzi - Will pas message. Does not know the position.
Lindsey Graham - Left message
John Ensign - Senator opposes CIR. But will convey message re. our provisions.
Orin Hatch - Left message
John Cornyn - Will pass message. No position yet
John Kyl - Will pass message
Mitch Mcconnel - Will pass message. No position yet.
Amy Klobuchar - Will pass message. No position yet.
Claire McCaskill - Left message.
Jon Tester - Will pass message. No position yet.
Jim Webb - Will pass message. No position yet.
Sheldon Whitehouse - Will pass message. Reviewing the bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment