snathan
08-20 10:31 PM
^^^Not sure about the credibility of this news since its from TOI, but SRK seems to have bitten off a little more than he could chew! Rest assured, he will get his publicity one way or the other. :D
SRK also equally crap to talk about...so lets give this thread rest to peace..
SRK also equally crap to talk about...so lets give this thread rest to peace..
wallpaper Prince William and Catherine
phenyle
07-28 06:23 PM
Hi,
Mine and my spouse I-485 has been current for over two months, We are on EB1 and our I485 receipt notice date was may 8 2007. The center is currently processing aug 2007 applications. My lawyer sent an inquiry 60 days ago and there has been no response from USCIS.
Please advice what i could do to find out why my processing has been delayed.
Thanks,
ashish
Mine and my spouse I-485 has been current for over two months, We are on EB1 and our I485 receipt notice date was may 8 2007. The center is currently processing aug 2007 applications. My lawyer sent an inquiry 60 days ago and there has been no response from USCIS.
Please advice what i could do to find out why my processing has been delayed.
Thanks,
ashish
mirage
04-02 08:04 AM
Here's what Dalal Street biggies think
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/elections-09-rakesh-jhunjhunwala-bhanshali-debate/89309-7-p0.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/elections-09-rakesh-jhunjhunwala-bhanshali-debate/89309-7-p0.html
2011 Prince William and Catherine
eb3_nepa
10-23 03:39 PM
Now can the company SELL this Labor certification? Can another company BUY such a Certification? I have heard a lot on this site about LC substituion and how they are sold/bought at a premium. How does all that work. Is that even possible?
more...
roseball
06-28 06:35 PM
My lawfirm just sent everyone an official memo stating the possibility of retrogression sometime in July and that they are working overtime to get all the cases filed at the earliest...They are saying that there is no guarantee that the 485 application will be accepted if DOS decides to retrogress dates in July....
rajsenthil
05-02 01:33 PM
If there's ethnic cleansing or genocide happening in sri lanka how come tamils lead prosperous lives in other parts of the country?
I do not understand what do you mean by this? Can you explain it?
I do not understand what do you mean by this? Can you explain it?
more...
sodh
11-10 01:55 AM
Just my thoughts its okay for companies to use preapproved labor of the enployees who are no more with them ,but what about employees who have worked with them for many years and when the time comes to file the employees I-140, either the the employee is layed off, or they file I-140 application with important documents missing resulting in RFE, no way of knowing whether your experience letters, your evaluation certificate with the evaluators credentials were ever submitted.(Ganda hai per dhanda hai ye).
2010 by Patricia-Kate 30 apr 11 You like this Be the first to like this Like
samay
07-14 06:59 AM
Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for helping us.
Scenario:
If one is working with company A on H1 and Company B applies a future employment GC for the person. The Person received EAD/AP for the 485 which is pending from 1 year through company B. Also have a valid and stamped H1 for 3 years from company A.
Now in this case:
1) Is there a Law or Need to Join company B since EAD has been issued?
2) Can one stick with company A even after getting EAD till he gets GC? In that case is AC21 required to remain with Company A?
3) Can one Join new Company X and use AC21?
I really appriciate your community service, thanks in advance!
1. No since the Green card is for a future job.
2.Yes since you have a valid H-1B and you do not need to invoke the AC21.
3. Yes.
Thank you for helping us.
Scenario:
If one is working with company A on H1 and Company B applies a future employment GC for the person. The Person received EAD/AP for the 485 which is pending from 1 year through company B. Also have a valid and stamped H1 for 3 years from company A.
Now in this case:
1) Is there a Law or Need to Join company B since EAD has been issued?
2) Can one stick with company A even after getting EAD till he gets GC? In that case is AC21 required to remain with Company A?
3) Can one Join new Company X and use AC21?
I really appriciate your community service, thanks in advance!
1. No since the Green card is for a future job.
2.Yes since you have a valid H-1B and you do not need to invoke the AC21.
3. Yes.
more...
gjoe
02-13 04:38 PM
Why should we give big bucks to big names? Instead we can pay 50% to 75% of that to a bunch of fresh law school grads from Harvard or some other top law school and see what they can do?
This way we would help young talent and also give them a platform to get their name in the front and at the same time we are not under cutting on their fees. Saving money but cutting unnecessary cost is the name of the game.
Any thoughs or counter arguments?
This way we would help young talent and also give them a platform to get their name in the front and at the same time we are not under cutting on their fees. Saving money but cutting unnecessary cost is the name of the game.
Any thoughs or counter arguments?
hair William and Kate attend second
Googler
02-18 03:58 PM
I do not understand why out of 205 people who voted yes, nobody has :
1) Contacted an attorney with his own money if they are so interested?
2) Nobody has agreed to become a plaintiff except Googler.
Googler, why don't you lead this effort and become the plaintiff and get a lawyer to start filing a case? You can file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all immigrant community. Once you file the case people will thank you and appreciate your bravery.
I do not think this lawsuit idea will go anywhere unless someone is willing to risk his greencard for it. Because once you become a plaintiff USCIS will review your case more thoroughly. Plus you need to get your employer on the same page for it. You also need to spend thousands of dollars from your own pocket to take part in your lawsuit.
Another thing, I do not trust lawyers opinion in this matter unless a lawyer is a litigation lawyer. If a lawfirm is good at filing paperwork and filling applications, they cannot do a class action lawsuit. They may show interest in it for money and publicity. You need to get a litigation lawyer only for it.
I've said this before but perhaps I'll have to say it many more times till it sinks in
... the thinking on this is at a VERY VERY VERY preliminary stage. In real life class action lawsuits, named plaintiffs are chosen based on how well they fit the argument in the case, not the other way round. As I said upthread, all those who want decisions, deals, money etc RIGHT NOW are being pretty unrealistic -- probably just because of unfamiliarity with the progress of cases like this. I know people want to be reassured that there is NO risk of losing, every decision node is mapped out, responsibility assigned, but if that is what anyone is thinking they have to rejigger their thinking. ;-)
IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
Internet, if you voted no, why are you so worked up about it? Nobody is about to make you do anything you don't want to do. Carry on with your life, this is not about to impinge you negatively. Why do you care what other people do with their time?
For people who voted yes, it is worth thinking about what you are willing to do for the effort -- at present, all that is needed is an interest and willingness to read and do some research and THAT IS ALL. Read the two paragraphs I quoted above.
As far as contacting attorneys and moving the ball forward, it is a time consuming process -- it isn't as though they call you right back with a draft brief and legal arguments. This is not an ordinary paperwork issue. It has after all been a grand total of 6 days since the poll was started on 2-12-08!! ;-)
1) Contacted an attorney with his own money if they are so interested?
2) Nobody has agreed to become a plaintiff except Googler.
Googler, why don't you lead this effort and become the plaintiff and get a lawyer to start filing a case? You can file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all immigrant community. Once you file the case people will thank you and appreciate your bravery.
I do not think this lawsuit idea will go anywhere unless someone is willing to risk his greencard for it. Because once you become a plaintiff USCIS will review your case more thoroughly. Plus you need to get your employer on the same page for it. You also need to spend thousands of dollars from your own pocket to take part in your lawsuit.
Another thing, I do not trust lawyers opinion in this matter unless a lawyer is a litigation lawyer. If a lawfirm is good at filing paperwork and filling applications, they cannot do a class action lawsuit. They may show interest in it for money and publicity. You need to get a litigation lawyer only for it.
I've said this before but perhaps I'll have to say it many more times till it sinks in
... the thinking on this is at a VERY VERY VERY preliminary stage. In real life class action lawsuits, named plaintiffs are chosen based on how well they fit the argument in the case, not the other way round. As I said upthread, all those who want decisions, deals, money etc RIGHT NOW are being pretty unrealistic -- probably just because of unfamiliarity with the progress of cases like this. I know people want to be reassured that there is NO risk of losing, every decision node is mapped out, responsibility assigned, but if that is what anyone is thinking they have to rejigger their thinking. ;-)
IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
Internet, if you voted no, why are you so worked up about it? Nobody is about to make you do anything you don't want to do. Carry on with your life, this is not about to impinge you negatively. Why do you care what other people do with their time?
For people who voted yes, it is worth thinking about what you are willing to do for the effort -- at present, all that is needed is an interest and willingness to read and do some research and THAT IS ALL. Read the two paragraphs I quoted above.
As far as contacting attorneys and moving the ball forward, it is a time consuming process -- it isn't as though they call you right back with a draft brief and legal arguments. This is not an ordinary paperwork issue. It has after all been a grand total of 6 days since the poll was started on 2-12-08!! ;-)
more...
americandesi
08-16 03:39 PM
Let's look at the following news items
"If Pepsi is banned in India, I would go to the US and drink it� - SRK in 2006. This shows that SRK is nothing but a money minded freak who'll do anything for big bucks.
"SRK was cleared in 66 minutes, say US officials". This shows the true picture of the incident and whatever happened was routine and nothing was intended to single out SRK.
"I was questioned for two hours"- SRK. This shows the dishonesty and exaggeration of the incident, which the actor feels has hurt his ego. It's like "Mommy! US has pinched me OOOOO"
"I don't feel like stepping on American soil any more, but it is the love and affection of millions of his fans in the US which would bring him to this country again and again." - SRK. It's like "I don't feel like eating Ice-cream anymore. But since you all fans want me to eat it, I'm gonna eat it again and again"
"Cabinet minister suggested a "tit-for-tat" policy toward Americans traveling to India". This shows that we don't have any brains of our own and a "tit-for-tat" policy is intended more as a revenge rather than a matter of national security.
"Angry fans in the northern city of Allahabad shouted anti-U.S. slogans and burned an American flag." This shows the ignorance, illiteracy and hero worship that's rampant in India.
"India to take SRK detention issue strongly with US ". This shows that the govt. of India has got no better things to do, but feels that VIP treatment to movie stars is more important than nation's security. Moreover SRK visit to US was purely personal to promote his film and has got nothing to do with govt. of India.
"21 farmers end lives in 40 days in Andhra". Is anyone looking into this? Helooooo.
"If Pepsi is banned in India, I would go to the US and drink it� - SRK in 2006. This shows that SRK is nothing but a money minded freak who'll do anything for big bucks.
"SRK was cleared in 66 minutes, say US officials". This shows the true picture of the incident and whatever happened was routine and nothing was intended to single out SRK.
"I was questioned for two hours"- SRK. This shows the dishonesty and exaggeration of the incident, which the actor feels has hurt his ego. It's like "Mommy! US has pinched me OOOOO"
"I don't feel like stepping on American soil any more, but it is the love and affection of millions of his fans in the US which would bring him to this country again and again." - SRK. It's like "I don't feel like eating Ice-cream anymore. But since you all fans want me to eat it, I'm gonna eat it again and again"
"Cabinet minister suggested a "tit-for-tat" policy toward Americans traveling to India". This shows that we don't have any brains of our own and a "tit-for-tat" policy is intended more as a revenge rather than a matter of national security.
"Angry fans in the northern city of Allahabad shouted anti-U.S. slogans and burned an American flag." This shows the ignorance, illiteracy and hero worship that's rampant in India.
"India to take SRK detention issue strongly with US ". This shows that the govt. of India has got no better things to do, but feels that VIP treatment to movie stars is more important than nation's security. Moreover SRK visit to US was purely personal to promote his film and has got nothing to do with govt. of India.
"21 farmers end lives in 40 days in Andhra". Is anyone looking into this? Helooooo.
hot kate 30
chanduv23
06-08 11:03 AM
Trying to change laws sensitive to long term residents and citizens, by those wanting to be residents is a tough task. What is possible, which we should keep trying for, is to make suitable interpretive changes, in the form of clarifications, which do not appear to be a major shift to what have been US long term policies.
For example, trying to do away with country quota would be very hard, as it is so sensitive for the main stream residents. Making it apply in overall immigration from a country rather than I-485 cases might work. Strong argument could be that EB I-485 candidates are highly qualified and are living in the US anyway. Therefore, applying any diversity rule on them does not make sense. However, country quota may continue to be applied for those who are not yet in the US, i.e. family based cases, or those EB candidates applying from their home countries with appropriate prioritization (for example, spouse joining may get highest priority).
employment based is just one part of the immigration thing. If you think EB immigration is important - there will be thousands of opinions from people who will say why other immigration is also important.
For example, trying to do away with country quota would be very hard, as it is so sensitive for the main stream residents. Making it apply in overall immigration from a country rather than I-485 cases might work. Strong argument could be that EB I-485 candidates are highly qualified and are living in the US anyway. Therefore, applying any diversity rule on them does not make sense. However, country quota may continue to be applied for those who are not yet in the US, i.e. family based cases, or those EB candidates applying from their home countries with appropriate prioritization (for example, spouse joining may get highest priority).
employment based is just one part of the immigration thing. If you think EB immigration is important - there will be thousands of opinions from people who will say why other immigration is also important.
more...
house Royal Wedding cake
_TrueFacts
09-03 11:00 PM
breddy2000,
Stick to the point, on YSR. Or open a thread on your favorite topics.
AP has seen an unprecedented political killings, govt and personal land grabbing, corruption, and opportunistic politics just for one man thirst YSR.
It’s better to have none than these factionist gundas. As for my id, yes just for this and more and it should not matter you. If you have point, talk about it, otherwise just shut up and don’t preach like YSR’s family member that “Someone or something is better than none”
Stick to the point, on YSR. Or open a thread on your favorite topics.
AP has seen an unprecedented political killings, govt and personal land grabbing, corruption, and opportunistic politics just for one man thirst YSR.
It’s better to have none than these factionist gundas. As for my id, yes just for this and more and it should not matter you. If you have point, talk about it, otherwise just shut up and don’t preach like YSR’s family member that “Someone or something is better than none”
tattoo royal wedding. Kate
GooblyWoobly
07-25 03:52 AM
VDLRAO - You brought lot of valid points which supported by authentic statistics. But surprisingly Ron�s comment about the Aug bulletin is totally vague. You can throw the numbers to prove your claim but I don�t think Ron really has any such numerical explanation for his statement.
With all due respect, I beg to differ from Ron (probably for the first time).
Lawyers are what they are, lawyers. They won't be able to crunch numbers as well as folks in this group. The problem was, previously there wasn't much data to crunch. With that available, I'd take folks like Ron/Oh's comments and predictions with a pinch of salt, and concentrate on vdlrao's predictions.
Sometimes, numbers won't allow us to predict correctly, as USCIS also has limited ability to crunch numbers properly. However, at those times, all the bets are off.
With all due respect, I beg to differ from Ron (probably for the first time).
Lawyers are what they are, lawyers. They won't be able to crunch numbers as well as folks in this group. The problem was, previously there wasn't much data to crunch. With that available, I'd take folks like Ron/Oh's comments and predictions with a pinch of salt, and concentrate on vdlrao's predictions.
Sometimes, numbers won't allow us to predict correctly, as USCIS also has limited ability to crunch numbers properly. However, at those times, all the bets are off.
more...
pictures Cream of the crop .
nandakumar
05-11 08:32 PM
What is treason here, did I betray India? did I sold India's secrets to some other country?
For me it is personal, my kith and kin are getting killed (talking about innocent civilians and not the LTTE) in Sri Lanka and India is actively supporting the Govt of Sri Lanka with weapons and other things, India can leverage its power to stop Sri Lanka to fight until Tamil civilians are cleared from the war zone but deliberately India is not doing that.
I abide by the constitution of India but at the same time I cannot be silent when the country leadership is pursuing a wrong policy, that I wouldn't have protested if India never involved in the issue ever but India used to be actively involved in the issue and has stake in it.
In my case, I came here to study and got an opportunity to work and decided that US is the best place for my career and applied for GC, eventually I might apply for citizenship but with this issue I have another strong reason to pursue my GC.
Just for argument sake, If one believes that their country of birth is pursuing a wrong policy, they can choose to move to a different country rather than living there and blaming it at every opportunity . What is wrong with it?
History is full of so many examples
Jews from Nazi Germany
Oppressed from communist soviet union
Cubans from Fidel Castro regime
Sikhs from India
and so on and so forth
If you or some one is curious, just to introduce me. I'm member of IV from Feb 2006, I participated in all the IV initiatives, besides check my entire forum history to see any where i had showed dissent towards India or for that matter any thing desperate except for free riders in the forum. This issue is personal to me and I have strong opinion on this.
It's not about showing resentment. Being able to protest is a fundamental right in a democracy, unlike a dictatorship which essentially the LTTE is. We do that everyday in India, America and other democratic setups. It's quite clear that you don't understand the basic concept of a pluralistic democracy that India and America stand for. To see what's wrong with what you said, let me quote you back :
Now if you don't see anything wrong with that, fair enough. But I do. I don't see resentment there. I see treason. In fact, I'll probably come over and party with you when you become a USC. That day will be as happy a time for Indians to not have you around as I'm sure it'll be for you.
To respond to your other post...and FYI
Check this link or goolge to know more about US flag burning protest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
Dude, you are seriously delusional. The day you try that stunt with the stars and stripes you'll be on Limbaugh, OReilly, Hannity, Glenn Beck, you name it. I don't agree with them but will still love to watch that unfold on TV.
For me it is personal, my kith and kin are getting killed (talking about innocent civilians and not the LTTE) in Sri Lanka and India is actively supporting the Govt of Sri Lanka with weapons and other things, India can leverage its power to stop Sri Lanka to fight until Tamil civilians are cleared from the war zone but deliberately India is not doing that.
I abide by the constitution of India but at the same time I cannot be silent when the country leadership is pursuing a wrong policy, that I wouldn't have protested if India never involved in the issue ever but India used to be actively involved in the issue and has stake in it.
In my case, I came here to study and got an opportunity to work and decided that US is the best place for my career and applied for GC, eventually I might apply for citizenship but with this issue I have another strong reason to pursue my GC.
Just for argument sake, If one believes that their country of birth is pursuing a wrong policy, they can choose to move to a different country rather than living there and blaming it at every opportunity . What is wrong with it?
History is full of so many examples
Jews from Nazi Germany
Oppressed from communist soviet union
Cubans from Fidel Castro regime
Sikhs from India
and so on and so forth
If you or some one is curious, just to introduce me. I'm member of IV from Feb 2006, I participated in all the IV initiatives, besides check my entire forum history to see any where i had showed dissent towards India or for that matter any thing desperate except for free riders in the forum. This issue is personal to me and I have strong opinion on this.
It's not about showing resentment. Being able to protest is a fundamental right in a democracy, unlike a dictatorship which essentially the LTTE is. We do that everyday in India, America and other democratic setups. It's quite clear that you don't understand the basic concept of a pluralistic democracy that India and America stand for. To see what's wrong with what you said, let me quote you back :
Now if you don't see anything wrong with that, fair enough. But I do. I don't see resentment there. I see treason. In fact, I'll probably come over and party with you when you become a USC. That day will be as happy a time for Indians to not have you around as I'm sure it'll be for you.
To respond to your other post...and FYI
Check this link or goolge to know more about US flag burning protest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
Dude, you are seriously delusional. The day you try that stunt with the stars and stripes you'll be on Limbaugh, OReilly, Hannity, Glenn Beck, you name it. I don't agree with them but will still love to watch that unfold on TV.
dresses Royal wedding: Prince William
ksrk
09-15 06:30 PM
Exactly, there are more EB application from India and most of them are older PD, so with no rule, all it means is that India will get bigger share.
But I thought the rule stated that the spillover can only be applied to over-subscribed countries in the FOURTH quarter of the fiscal year - meaning no sooner than June/July 2010 - or am I missing something here?
How can the VB get past March 2005 in December 2009? If it does, I'll be very happy! However, I would like to know if the estimate is realistic...and not over-optimistic.
But I thought the rule stated that the spillover can only be applied to over-subscribed countries in the FOURTH quarter of the fiscal year - meaning no sooner than June/July 2010 - or am I missing something here?
How can the VB get past March 2005 in December 2009? If it does, I'll be very happy! However, I would like to know if the estimate is realistic...and not over-optimistic.
more...
makeup Posted by Kate 30 September,
pathiren
09-28 08:46 PM
Thanks for the response in advance.
The question is:
1) Can a husband (on H1) own a business and sponsor (H1 and greencard) his wife to work for the same business?
2) Can an Indian company start LLC or any other kind of firm and own a business and sponsor someone- more specifically my dad (a major stake holder in Indian company) and this indian company starts some kind of LLC or inc (whichever is feasible) and sponsor my wife for H1 and greencard?
I know its kind of confusing, but would appreciate if you can try and explore this.
Thanks a lot!
The question is:
1) Can a husband (on H1) own a business and sponsor (H1 and greencard) his wife to work for the same business?
2) Can an Indian company start LLC or any other kind of firm and own a business and sponsor someone- more specifically my dad (a major stake holder in Indian company) and this indian company starts some kind of LLC or inc (whichever is feasible) and sponsor my wife for H1 and greencard?
I know its kind of confusing, but would appreciate if you can try and explore this.
Thanks a lot!
girlfriend in Royal Wedding Prince
Macaca
06-28 08:24 PM
As per Macaca's logic, pre Oct 2005 PDs will take up all the numbers available for EB2 Indai for 2007, in June and July.
Not all numbers for 2007. Only numbers that were left before June 1st.
How many numbers are for EB-2 (India)? I think 2800.
Not all numbers for 2007. Only numbers that were left before June 1st.
How many numbers are for EB-2 (India)? I think 2800.
hairstyles PHOTO: The Royal Wedding
santb1975
02-12 10:46 PM
???
lazycis
02-13 12:03 PM
Lawsuits do work. Apparently nobody checked the links I posted on page 1 so here are a few examples:
USCIS Settlement Notices and Agreements
American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh (ABC) Settlement Agreement
Barahona-Gomez v Ashcroft
CSS
LULAC (Newman)
Ngwanyia v Gonzalez (Asylee Adjustment Case)
Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement and Hearing in Kaplan, Et Al. v. Chertoff, Et Al., Civil Action No. 06-5304 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Notice to Persons Whose Naturalization Applications Were Denied by the Seattle, Spokane or Yakima Immigration Service
Proyecto San Pablo v INS
Ramos v Chertoff (02 C 8266, Northern District, Illinois)
Walters v Reno
Settlement Agreement Signed! Details available by clicking here. --2/9/05
IMPLEMENTATION OF NGWANYIA (ASYLEE ADJUSTMENT CASE) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Ngwanyia v. Gonzales, No. 02-502 (RHK) (D. Minn).
If you were granted asylum in the United States and have a pending application for adjustment of status, this settlement applies to you. Please refer to http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/NgwanyiaVGonzales.PDF In recent years immigration law had allowed only 10, 000 asylees per year to adjust their status to Lawful Permanent Residents. Under the settlement agreement, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will process an additional 31,000 asylee adjustments during the next three years. During fiscal year 2005, ending September 30, 2005, USCIS will process 8,000 of the additional 31,000, bringing the total number adjusted for the year to 18,000. USCIS will process at least 8,000 of the 31,000 during fiscal year 2006, (October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006) with the remaining additional applications being processed in fiscal year 2007 (October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007). The settlement also provides that asylees who have a pending application for adjustment of status may renew their employment authorization document (EAD) by requesting a multi-year EAD with a validity of up to five years. The multi-year EAD must be prepaid for the number of years requested. The cost of the multi-year EAD will be less than the cost of annual renewals by at least $20 per year. A requests for a fee waiver, if applicable, may be made pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 103.7(c) Cost of multi-year EAD: 1 year card - $175.00 2 year card - $330.00 3 year card - $485.00
USCIS Settlement Notices and Agreements
American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh (ABC) Settlement Agreement
Barahona-Gomez v Ashcroft
CSS
LULAC (Newman)
Ngwanyia v Gonzalez (Asylee Adjustment Case)
Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement and Hearing in Kaplan, Et Al. v. Chertoff, Et Al., Civil Action No. 06-5304 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Notice to Persons Whose Naturalization Applications Were Denied by the Seattle, Spokane or Yakima Immigration Service
Proyecto San Pablo v INS
Ramos v Chertoff (02 C 8266, Northern District, Illinois)
Walters v Reno
Settlement Agreement Signed! Details available by clicking here. --2/9/05
IMPLEMENTATION OF NGWANYIA (ASYLEE ADJUSTMENT CASE) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Ngwanyia v. Gonzales, No. 02-502 (RHK) (D. Minn).
If you were granted asylum in the United States and have a pending application for adjustment of status, this settlement applies to you. Please refer to http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/NgwanyiaVGonzales.PDF In recent years immigration law had allowed only 10, 000 asylees per year to adjust their status to Lawful Permanent Residents. Under the settlement agreement, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will process an additional 31,000 asylee adjustments during the next three years. During fiscal year 2005, ending September 30, 2005, USCIS will process 8,000 of the additional 31,000, bringing the total number adjusted for the year to 18,000. USCIS will process at least 8,000 of the 31,000 during fiscal year 2006, (October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006) with the remaining additional applications being processed in fiscal year 2007 (October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007). The settlement also provides that asylees who have a pending application for adjustment of status may renew their employment authorization document (EAD) by requesting a multi-year EAD with a validity of up to five years. The multi-year EAD must be prepaid for the number of years requested. The cost of the multi-year EAD will be less than the cost of annual renewals by at least $20 per year. A requests for a fee waiver, if applicable, may be made pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 103.7(c) Cost of multi-year EAD: 1 year card - $175.00 2 year card - $330.00 3 year card - $485.00
villamonte6100
12-14 12:30 PM
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
You don't have a case. Before laws are signed, lawmakers spend hours and hours or weeks arguing, debating and modying before it is passed by both Senators and congressmen.
If they change the current law to favor Indians, then it will be disciminatory to other nationals. Think the other way.
Personally, I don't see any discrimination in the existing law. It so happened that you came from Indian and the law only allows a certain percentage per country.
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
You don't have a case. Before laws are signed, lawmakers spend hours and hours or weeks arguing, debating and modying before it is passed by both Senators and congressmen.
If they change the current law to favor Indians, then it will be disciminatory to other nationals. Think the other way.
Personally, I don't see any discrimination in the existing law. It so happened that you came from Indian and the law only allows a certain percentage per country.