gc28262
01-14 01:14 PM
V true.
Folks, the memo clearly empowers USCIS to crack down on consulting firms which don't have any in-house infrastructure (other than contractors) to execute projects.
H1B is misused for a long time now by these firms and it was high time they put the screws on these "job shops" as they call it. Unfortunately some talented workers will get impacted.
But if they are talented they will find opportunities elsewhere. Trust me on that. And better opportunities.
Nathan is exactly right. These firms have created a mess by bending rules everywhere.
Don't start speculating that USCIS is trying to throw out all immigrants from this country. I'm surprised that folks don't take a proper view of the situation (yeah..bring the reds on and call me an anti-immigrant).
You are wrong. Look behind the scenes to understand what is really happening. Who forced this memo ? Who made this lawmaker to write letters to USCIS director ? You were not watching while all the background work was being done by anti-immigrants.
Folks, the memo clearly empowers USCIS to crack down on consulting firms which don't have any in-house infrastructure (other than contractors) to execute projects.
H1B is misused for a long time now by these firms and it was high time they put the screws on these "job shops" as they call it. Unfortunately some talented workers will get impacted.
But if they are talented they will find opportunities elsewhere. Trust me on that. And better opportunities.
Nathan is exactly right. These firms have created a mess by bending rules everywhere.
Don't start speculating that USCIS is trying to throw out all immigrants from this country. I'm surprised that folks don't take a proper view of the situation (yeah..bring the reds on and call me an anti-immigrant).
You are wrong. Look behind the scenes to understand what is really happening. Who forced this memo ? Who made this lawmaker to write letters to USCIS director ? You were not watching while all the background work was being done by anti-immigrants.
wallpaper The Voice Judges - Cee Lo
gc28262
01-24 03:45 PM
I have been a silent reader of Murthy forum, and I have been observing JoeF's posts. He is NOT an anti-immigrant. He is just educating people about the law. That's what I see from his posts. He is knowledgeable enough to answer the questions of the forum readers.
Maybe his posts sound rude for the wounded and needy. But I think he isn't taking anything bad about immigration or prospective immigrants.
Anyways, thats not the topic of this thread and don't mean to detract.
I have been observing JoeF's posts from different threads. I can say for sure he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is just another sadistic person like snram4 on this forum.
For instance JoeF says "he saw it coming" in reference to this memo. But the fact is, this memo is ILLEGAL. It has no legal base. Please refer to Murthy's latest newsletter. However members on murthy forum as well as you spicy_guy, thinks that JoeF is "knowledgeable". I am surprised to see that people who are here in this country for long believes all the BS that JoeF says.
Maybe his posts sound rude for the wounded and needy. But I think he isn't taking anything bad about immigration or prospective immigrants.
Anyways, thats not the topic of this thread and don't mean to detract.
I have been observing JoeF's posts from different threads. I can say for sure he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is just another sadistic person like snram4 on this forum.
For instance JoeF says "he saw it coming" in reference to this memo. But the fact is, this memo is ILLEGAL. It has no legal base. Please refer to Murthy's latest newsletter. However members on murthy forum as well as you spicy_guy, thinks that JoeF is "knowledgeable". I am surprised to see that people who are here in this country for long believes all the BS that JoeF says.
at0474
12-14 05:17 PM
Are you saying that because someone like that does not qualify for EB1, all they are doing is not wishing to compete on merit? Are you saying a teacher is not deserving of a green card.
--No. I did not say that.
--No. I did not say that.
2011 The Voice Judges Panel
gc4me
03-28 02:37 PM
Looks like we have 45 days after the rule goes in effect. Please read the following text.
Will you please tell us which text you are refering to?
(b) Expiration of labor certifications. For certifications
resulting from applications filed under this regulation and the
regulation in effect prior to March 28, 2005:
(1) An approved permanent labor certification granted on or after
[effective date of the final rule] expires if not filed in support of a
petition with the Department of Homeland Security within 45 calendar
days of the date the Department of Labor granted the certification.
(2) An approved permanent labor certification granted before
[effective date of the final rule] expires if not filed in support of a
petition with the Department of Homeland Security within 45 calendar
days of [effective date of the final rule].
(c) Scope of validity. For certifications resulting from
applications filed under this regulation and the regulation in effect
prior to March 28, 2005:
(1) A permanent labor certification for a Schedule A occupation or
sheepherders is valid only for the occupation set forth on the
Application for Alien Employment Certification (ETA Form 750) or the
Application for Permanent Employment Certification (ETA Form 9089) and
only for the alien named on the original application, unless a
substitution was approved prior to [effective date of the final rule].
The certification is valid throughout the United States unless the
certification contains a geographic limitation.
(2) A permanent labor certification involving a specific job offer
is valid only for the particular job opportunity, the alien named on
the original application (unless a substitution was approved prior to
[effective date of the final rule]), and the area of intended
employment stated on the Application for Alien Employment Certification
(ETA Form 750) or the Application for Permanent Employment
Certification (ETA Form 9089).
Sure http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-1248.htm
Will you please tell us which text you are refering to?
(b) Expiration of labor certifications. For certifications
resulting from applications filed under this regulation and the
regulation in effect prior to March 28, 2005:
(1) An approved permanent labor certification granted on or after
[effective date of the final rule] expires if not filed in support of a
petition with the Department of Homeland Security within 45 calendar
days of the date the Department of Labor granted the certification.
(2) An approved permanent labor certification granted before
[effective date of the final rule] expires if not filed in support of a
petition with the Department of Homeland Security within 45 calendar
days of [effective date of the final rule].
(c) Scope of validity. For certifications resulting from
applications filed under this regulation and the regulation in effect
prior to March 28, 2005:
(1) A permanent labor certification for a Schedule A occupation or
sheepherders is valid only for the occupation set forth on the
Application for Alien Employment Certification (ETA Form 750) or the
Application for Permanent Employment Certification (ETA Form 9089) and
only for the alien named on the original application, unless a
substitution was approved prior to [effective date of the final rule].
The certification is valid throughout the United States unless the
certification contains a geographic limitation.
(2) A permanent labor certification involving a specific job offer
is valid only for the particular job opportunity, the alien named on
the original application (unless a substitution was approved prior to
[effective date of the final rule]), and the area of intended
employment stated on the Application for Alien Employment Certification
(ETA Form 750) or the Application for Permanent Employment
Certification (ETA Form 9089).
Sure http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-1248.htm
more...
msp1976
02-13 02:50 PM
I don't think so. 7% limit has been there for a very long time. Unused visas from prior years for ac21 purposes were still subject to 7% in current year. The 7% rule was unchanged.
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
Refer to this text.....
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/8usc/www/t8-12-II-I-1152.html#_a_
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, Sec. 1152.
Look at paragraph a(5)
(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants
(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per country
limitation if additional visas available
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1153(b) of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e) of this section
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) of this section applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(b) of this title consistent with subsection (e) of this section (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying subsection (e) of this section all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 1153(b) of this title.
This is the section that allows for the 7% cap to be violated in case additional visas are available.................
This is the one many anti immigrant people tried to get removed again and again......
USCIS did not do anything wrong in 2005 nor in 2006.....By allocating additional visas to India/China USCIS did not do anything wrong...You can sue them ....USCIS has good grounds to defend their position.....You would not get anywhere...
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
Refer to this text.....
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/8usc/www/t8-12-II-I-1152.html#_a_
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, Sec. 1152.
Look at paragraph a(5)
(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants
(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per country
limitation if additional visas available
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1153(b) of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e) of this section
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) of this section applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(b) of this title consistent with subsection (e) of this section (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying subsection (e) of this section all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 1153(b) of this title.
This is the section that allows for the 7% cap to be violated in case additional visas are available.................
This is the one many anti immigrant people tried to get removed again and again......
USCIS did not do anything wrong in 2005 nor in 2006.....By allocating additional visas to India/China USCIS did not do anything wrong...You can sue them ....USCIS has good grounds to defend their position.....You would not get anywhere...
mchundi
02-19 04:49 PM
What you are talking here is the Eb1-EA category.. and not the general EB1 category..
The EB1 Category is primarily meant for inter company transfers. Most of the people who qualify to get GC under this category come to US through the inter company transfer route and are primarily on L1-A work visa. Folks under L1-A do not require a labor certification and directly file I-140 /485 unlike people who come on L1-b visa which is also inter company transfer and requires a person to file a labor certification in US and then file GC under Eb2 or Eb3 as the case may be.
It�s surprising that Eb1 is current for India. Going by the facts.. the top 3 IT companies had shipped most of their project folks infact every other person to US under L1-A in the last few years when H1-b was under scrutiny for these companies. Most of these people who came under L1-A should have applied for GC under Eb1 which should have retrogressed the dates for EB1 also. The only logical reason for this that these companies are being very selective in doing GC now unlike in the past when a lot of people had got GC under this category.. and the date for EB1 for India had retrogressed in beginning of 2006..
That apart the other reason why this category is current is that most of the staffing companies aka.. body shoppers cannot use this route to get people to US.. because they need to have full-fledged profitable operations overseas�. and the person being sponsored should have atleast worked for 365 days outside US for the company. The consulates do a complete check before giving an authorization under L1-A or L1-B category..
How many of the top indian IT companies file GC's for their employees?:rolleyes:
The EB1 Category is primarily meant for inter company transfers. Most of the people who qualify to get GC under this category come to US through the inter company transfer route and are primarily on L1-A work visa. Folks under L1-A do not require a labor certification and directly file I-140 /485 unlike people who come on L1-b visa which is also inter company transfer and requires a person to file a labor certification in US and then file GC under Eb2 or Eb3 as the case may be.
It�s surprising that Eb1 is current for India. Going by the facts.. the top 3 IT companies had shipped most of their project folks infact every other person to US under L1-A in the last few years when H1-b was under scrutiny for these companies. Most of these people who came under L1-A should have applied for GC under Eb1 which should have retrogressed the dates for EB1 also. The only logical reason for this that these companies are being very selective in doing GC now unlike in the past when a lot of people had got GC under this category.. and the date for EB1 for India had retrogressed in beginning of 2006..
That apart the other reason why this category is current is that most of the staffing companies aka.. body shoppers cannot use this route to get people to US.. because they need to have full-fledged profitable operations overseas�. and the person being sponsored should have atleast worked for 365 days outside US for the company. The consulates do a complete check before giving an authorization under L1-A or L1-B category..
How many of the top indian IT companies file GC's for their employees?:rolleyes:
more...
riva2005
03-16 01:05 PM
There are many more Nick Mandallapas out there selling labor certs to highest bidders for GC.
Nick Mandallapa went to prison, but others are still out there doing it coz most likely, the Dept of labor is not equipped to catch all the labor sales.
Nick Mandallapa went to prison, but others are still out there doing it coz most likely, the Dept of labor is not equipped to catch all the labor sales.
2010 The judging team of The Voice
gc28262
06-16 03:15 PM
I guess we should ban people like dilipcr and senthil1 who are here to achieve their selfish ends.
Though we have the capacity to tolerate such self seeking anti-immigrants, it diverts the energy and focus of IV members from the reason for which IV was founded.
dilipcr and senthil1,
We don't appreciate your presence here as your agendas don't fit ours. Please stay away from IV.
Though we have the capacity to tolerate such self seeking anti-immigrants, it diverts the energy and focus of IV members from the reason for which IV was founded.
dilipcr and senthil1,
We don't appreciate your presence here as your agendas don't fit ours. Please stay away from IV.
more...
hiralal
06-04 09:21 PM
now that we have 13 pages of discussion ..can we agree on something and start small campaigns atleast ???
that way we can generate more interest in IV.
we can do something indirect too ..such as contacting your realtors ..show interest in buying and then back off ..the advantage in this (if large number of people take part and each contact 4-5 realtors) ..then we will have someone else lobbying for us (rather than ourselves beating our own drum)
if someone has better idea then we can go for that too
that way we can generate more interest in IV.
we can do something indirect too ..such as contacting your realtors ..show interest in buying and then back off ..the advantage in this (if large number of people take part and each contact 4-5 realtors) ..then we will have someone else lobbying for us (rather than ourselves beating our own drum)
if someone has better idea then we can go for that too
hair NBC#39;s The Voice Premiere#39;s
DSLStart
09-23 03:39 PM
:D:D:D How do you expect them to give you a gori too?
You start looking for singles working @ uscis ;)
why not ask for citizenship if we buy 2 houses?. I will even buy that toxic debt from banks, if i get citizenship and a gori.
You start looking for singles working @ uscis ;)
why not ask for citizenship if we buy 2 houses?. I will even buy that toxic debt from banks, if i get citizenship and a gori.
more...
apb
12-14 02:24 PM
I really don't see how removing the per country ceilings alone without increasing the anual quota will help the entire comminity. If you do that alone all it will do is make the date retrogressed for all the countries even further. So where's the gain?
Getting the anual quota increased, not counting dependents in the quota and recapturing visas from passed years will help EVERYBODY.
If people want to think that something petty as removing the per country quota is going to solve all our problms then all the best (and God bless us all) ! :cool:
PS - Pardon me if this sounds harsh but this is how I see it.
We need to understand that the basic premise of the removing the per country limit uses the assumption that there is enough visa for all of us. But sadly this is not true. We have ask for increasing the GC limit from 140000 to xyz. The last increase was in 1990 which was after 14 years. Now 18 years have passed and there is no change in that direction.
Increasing limit cannot be fought in the court. It requires changes in law. Removing dependents from EB based GC consumption also cannot be decided in court. But removing per country limit for EB/GC can be decided in court. Just because we are fighting for one does not mean we are ignoring other agendas of IV.
Getting the anual quota increased, not counting dependents in the quota and recapturing visas from passed years will help EVERYBODY.
If people want to think that something petty as removing the per country quota is going to solve all our problms then all the best (and God bless us all) ! :cool:
PS - Pardon me if this sounds harsh but this is how I see it.
We need to understand that the basic premise of the removing the per country limit uses the assumption that there is enough visa for all of us. But sadly this is not true. We have ask for increasing the GC limit from 140000 to xyz. The last increase was in 1990 which was after 14 years. Now 18 years have passed and there is no change in that direction.
Increasing limit cannot be fought in the court. It requires changes in law. Removing dependents from EB based GC consumption also cannot be decided in court. But removing per country limit for EB/GC can be decided in court. Just because we are fighting for one does not mean we are ignoring other agendas of IV.
hot BAM column: “The Voice” hooks
amoljak
10-23 03:27 PM
Thanks eb3India.
How does the current company obtain a pre-approved labor? Does it buy the pre-app labour? Or is it SOLELY because someone in the company left (whose labor was approved)?
Labor certification means a company is certifying that they cannot find an American to do the job, lets say write a Java program. So once they certify that, they can say look we have this dude from India who can write Java programs, we want to hire him permanently. But what if the dude gets a better job or goes back to India or both...? The company still needs someone to write that Java program... they have established that they are not able to find an American to do that... so they can say this dude-2 has the same qualifications as the dude whom we originally want... so let us hire him permanently... so that is labor substitution... there is genuine business case to do that.
How does the current company obtain a pre-approved labor? Does it buy the pre-app labour? Or is it SOLELY because someone in the company left (whose labor was approved)?
Labor certification means a company is certifying that they cannot find an American to do the job, lets say write a Java program. So once they certify that, they can say look we have this dude from India who can write Java programs, we want to hire him permanently. But what if the dude gets a better job or goes back to India or both...? The company still needs someone to write that Java program... they have established that they are not able to find an American to do that... so they can say this dude-2 has the same qualifications as the dude whom we originally want... so let us hire him permanently... so that is labor substitution... there is genuine business case to do that.
more...
house the voice judges crazy
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.
tattoo vie to impress the judges,
eb3_nepa
06-28 09:17 AM
http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/aila-cis-vb.pdf
Karthik
Excellent link. Good research by Macaca and logiclife.
A couple more things guys:
1) Matthew Oh has been known in the past to be a BIT of a sensationalist. Remember this past weekend and his scare regarding the yanking away of AC-21 provisions for I-485 filers? So lets take whatever he says with a PINCH OF SALT! ;)
2) Let us please stop these messages about how Jesus and the saints would get their GCs processed. It may very well be offensive to some of the Christian members and to some Americans reading the forums.
Karthik
Excellent link. Good research by Macaca and logiclife.
A couple more things guys:
1) Matthew Oh has been known in the past to be a BIT of a sensationalist. Remember this past weekend and his scare regarding the yanking away of AC-21 provisions for I-485 filers? So lets take whatever he says with a PINCH OF SALT! ;)
2) Let us please stop these messages about how Jesus and the saints would get their GCs processed. It may very well be offensive to some of the Christian members and to some Americans reading the forums.
more...
pictures hairstyles the voice judges
PlainSpeak
01-14 09:23 AM
My responses are in blue
My advice to you, this forum gives members a chance to voice their problems and many members help with suggestions and experiences. IV works for relieving our problems - and if their intentions are on our side, we need to help them and not fight amongst us or them. Judge by what the administrators of this org say.
My Friend VedicMan
So let me get this straight. IV Senior members can abuse and threaten and basically talk bad about the post but i am NOT even supposed to respond to them with good words (please read all my replies)
And from your other statement, You have already decided that i am not only responsible for my post (And Yes i stand proudly by my post) but i am now also responsible for you guys abusing the post. I am goaing you !!!!! (You know for a second i did get a mental picture of me staning besides you with a stick and poking you in your stomach RESPOND TO THIS POST / RESPOND TO THIS POST / RESPOND TO THIS POST )
So the fact is my friend as i said before when some one has no more reparte to a give they end up making such posts. And as to you traditional upbringing which does not allow you to think that a gal can be confrontational as i said before you have the right to think whatever you want (Whether i am a guy or a gal or if you would like something else) that is your right and yes that thinking can also cloud your judjement (as it is doing now) but what you do NOT have a right is to decide that you are the Judge/Jury/Executioner of every thread opened on this forum
I cannot think of anyone with good intentions spending time to respond to comments that are not worthwhile.......
So senior members can abuse as much as they want and me instead of abusing back (Which you would really like me to do i know) am replying back in a calm measured response and that is once again my fault
You know with your twisted logic of justice and fair play if i am ever in court i would certainly NOT want you to be in the Jury. Infact i would not want you anywhere near the court because you might not even wait for the judgement. You would want to just go decide that i am at fault and get it done with
PS: and yes i am responding back because every response no matter how abusive or unfair like yours deserves an answer
My advice to you, this forum gives members a chance to voice their problems and many members help with suggestions and experiences. IV works for relieving our problems - and if their intentions are on our side, we need to help them and not fight amongst us or them. Judge by what the administrators of this org say.
My Friend VedicMan
So let me get this straight. IV Senior members can abuse and threaten and basically talk bad about the post but i am NOT even supposed to respond to them with good words (please read all my replies)
And from your other statement, You have already decided that i am not only responsible for my post (And Yes i stand proudly by my post) but i am now also responsible for you guys abusing the post. I am goaing you !!!!! (You know for a second i did get a mental picture of me staning besides you with a stick and poking you in your stomach RESPOND TO THIS POST / RESPOND TO THIS POST / RESPOND TO THIS POST )
So the fact is my friend as i said before when some one has no more reparte to a give they end up making such posts. And as to you traditional upbringing which does not allow you to think that a gal can be confrontational as i said before you have the right to think whatever you want (Whether i am a guy or a gal or if you would like something else) that is your right and yes that thinking can also cloud your judjement (as it is doing now) but what you do NOT have a right is to decide that you are the Judge/Jury/Executioner of every thread opened on this forum
I cannot think of anyone with good intentions spending time to respond to comments that are not worthwhile.......
So senior members can abuse as much as they want and me instead of abusing back (Which you would really like me to do i know) am replying back in a calm measured response and that is once again my fault
You know with your twisted logic of justice and fair play if i am ever in court i would certainly NOT want you to be in the Jury. Infact i would not want you anywhere near the court because you might not even wait for the judgement. You would want to just go decide that i am at fault and get it done with
PS: and yes i am responding back because every response no matter how abusive or unfair like yours deserves an answer
dresses The Voice Judges
hiralal
08-16 07:38 AM
I am a patriotic Indian. Why the hell cant this Khan guy go through the same ordeal as an ordinary Indian or any other passenger. Why all the fuss? Is he god??? Hell NO...I would just tell him to shut up and carry on with life. He is an idiot and just doing this for more publicity. How many Indian muslims go through this shit everyday? Why cant he tolerate this 2 hr ordeal like an ordinary Indian muslim or for that matter hindu? Racial profiling is for everyone who is colored and non-US citizen. He is not a good guy as he cant even take a 2 hr ordeal as an ordinary citizen because he thinks he is GOD...when in fact he is as ordinary as anybody. Just because he has money, name and fame should be become god? no way. I dont mind if the Indian airport security frisked Tom Cruise or any other actor. Who cares!! Its our countrys security, but you know what India wont do that as all the airport officials incl. security are so corrupt and also if they see white skin they will just allow them freely thinking they are god!! thats our stupidity not the americans???
I am glad this happened to the so called "King Khan" as he is king only in his mind. Not for me because for me he is a talented actor other than that he is not GOD but just a mere human being..
I sort of agree with the above - why all this fuss - it should be an eye opener to him that he is a human after all. maybe he should become more charitable to poor Indians like hollywood stars are if he wants to earn my respect. there is too much of hero worship in India and they sort of think themselves as god (it is not just SRK but even cricketers like Tendulkar etc - they are just not charitable like steve waugh etc)
Read SRK's latest comment "'King' Khan stunned the large number of Indian-Americans when he told them that he does not feel like stepping on the 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. "
it is like saying - I don't like Cake - I hate it --- but I will eat it again and again --hopefully he will face ordeal like this again and again :D
I am glad this happened to the so called "King Khan" as he is king only in his mind. Not for me because for me he is a talented actor other than that he is not GOD but just a mere human being..
I sort of agree with the above - why all this fuss - it should be an eye opener to him that he is a human after all. maybe he should become more charitable to poor Indians like hollywood stars are if he wants to earn my respect. there is too much of hero worship in India and they sort of think themselves as god (it is not just SRK but even cricketers like Tendulkar etc - they are just not charitable like steve waugh etc)
Read SRK's latest comment "'King' Khan stunned the large number of Indian-Americans when he told them that he does not feel like stepping on the 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. "
it is like saying - I don't like Cake - I hate it --- but I will eat it again and again --hopefully he will face ordeal like this again and again :D
more...
makeup The producers also cut down
Abhinaym
01-15 02:44 PM
Add hassles to businesses. Appeal to xenophobic voter bank.
girlfriend #39;The Voice#39; judges Blake
Googler
02-15 10:28 PM
My friend, I'm not trying to fight you. All I am saying that you cannot file a class action against USCIS because they have not done anything wrong. They are just following the law.
If you really want to have this change, it is the US congress that you can deal with.
As I've said, I work for a law firm.
Why don't ask your immigration lawyer first regarding the "class action" you are talking about.
(1) There was no shortage of laypeople and even attorneys who asserted that "USCIS isn't doing anything wrong they are just following the law" when it came to FBI name checks. Fortunately for all of us sharper legal brains and sharper judges prevailed, and brought us to this happy day.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. 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.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
If you really want to have this change, it is the US congress that you can deal with.
As I've said, I work for a law firm.
Why don't ask your immigration lawyer first regarding the "class action" you are talking about.
(1) There was no shortage of laypeople and even attorneys who asserted that "USCIS isn't doing anything wrong they are just following the law" when it came to FBI name checks. Fortunately for all of us sharper legal brains and sharper judges prevailed, and brought us to this happy day.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. 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.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
hairstyles NBC#39;s #39;The Voice#39; As Judge
okuzmin
09-30 04:29 AM
HI can some body answer if we can apply for canadian PR with H1 B valid for less than 1 year.
For canadian citizenship you have to be in canada for 2 yr(physicaly) and after 3 yr after stamping
You can apply for Canadian PR while staying in the USA if you can demonstrate that you have entered the USA legally and stayed in the country legally for at least one year. That's what Canadian law says. I'm too lazy to look for the actual law -- just google it. ;)
You can apply for the Canadian citizenship after staying in Canada for three years out of four. Of these three years, you must be a PR for at least two years.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/becoming-howto.html
For canadian citizenship you have to be in canada for 2 yr(physicaly) and after 3 yr after stamping
You can apply for Canadian PR while staying in the USA if you can demonstrate that you have entered the USA legally and stayed in the country legally for at least one year. That's what Canadian law says. I'm too lazy to look for the actual law -- just google it. ;)
You can apply for the Canadian citizenship after staying in Canada for three years out of four. Of these three years, you must be a PR for at least two years.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/becoming-howto.html
jetflyer
01-14 11:07 AM
My friend works for Deloitte & Touche and they charge $550/hr and he gets $75/hr.. so what? And he is USC.
Do you know the rates top consulting company charges? they normally starts from $400/hr+ in Accenture, PWC, KPMG, E&Y Etc and their employee's do not get paid more than 20%. Its a practice around the world.
Check what they are paying. I know a company which charges $110-$130 ph to the client and payes around $30K for the employee in L1. Is it good business practice...? Not only desi consulting cos...these a$$ also the reason we are in this mess today. Just imagine when the antis comes to know that 30K pa salary....
Do you know the rates top consulting company charges? they normally starts from $400/hr+ in Accenture, PWC, KPMG, E&Y Etc and their employee's do not get paid more than 20%. Its a practice around the world.
Check what they are paying. I know a company which charges $110-$130 ph to the client and payes around $30K for the employee in L1. Is it good business practice...? Not only desi consulting cos...these a$$ also the reason we are in this mess today. Just imagine when the antis comes to know that 30K pa salary....
eeezzz
07-17 11:35 AM
I don't agree with your arguement. Spillover can happen in any quarter and you don't need to wait until the last quarter for it to happen. with EB1 and EB2 being current, the spillover into EB2 I and C will start from November/December of 2008 itself
What makes you so sure the spillover can happen in the first quarter? Is there an example in the last 10 years? You may have forgot Feb. 2008 bulletin. If what you say is true, why it was U for EB2-I on Feb. 2008? No one in USCIS can take the responsibility if the spillover in first quarter causes EB2 RoW with cutoff date later, as they can't predict if there will be enough(or not) applicants to fullfill the quota. Therefore, spillover can only happen at 4th quarter. Unless if there's really mininum of usage, then it may start at 3rd quarter, but I don't think it will ever happen at 1st quarter.
Here is the Feb 2008 bulletin.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3925.html
INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE HAS BECOME “UNAVAILABLE”
Despite two retrogressions of the India Employment Second preference cut-off date, demand for numbers by CIS Offices for adjustment of status cases has remained extremely high in recent months. As a result the annual limit for the India Employment Second preference category has been reached, and the category has become “unavailable” effective immediately.
What makes you so sure the spillover can happen in the first quarter? Is there an example in the last 10 years? You may have forgot Feb. 2008 bulletin. If what you say is true, why it was U for EB2-I on Feb. 2008? No one in USCIS can take the responsibility if the spillover in first quarter causes EB2 RoW with cutoff date later, as they can't predict if there will be enough(or not) applicants to fullfill the quota. Therefore, spillover can only happen at 4th quarter. Unless if there's really mininum of usage, then it may start at 3rd quarter, but I don't think it will ever happen at 1st quarter.
Here is the Feb 2008 bulletin.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3925.html
INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE HAS BECOME “UNAVAILABLE”
Despite two retrogressions of the India Employment Second preference cut-off date, demand for numbers by CIS Offices for adjustment of status cases has remained extremely high in recent months. As a result the annual limit for the India Employment Second preference category has been reached, and the category has become “unavailable” effective immediately.
