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.
wallpaper Rabbit Clipart
kittu1991
05-01 02:44 PM
It is a shame India does not act to protect the interests of its citizens even after this news came up.
Why do you think it is Indian citizens? Just because some politicians are saying so for their own gains all Tamilians in Srilanka are not Indian citizen.
Heck, even USA is trying harder than India by using its muscle to block billions of dollars of IMF funds to SL for not caring about ceasefire.
Are you suggesting India should start playing the role of world police as USA.
LTTE is the one who took the life of our beloved leader Rajiv Gandhi who would have taken India to much high in the world. And why should India protect them.
Why do you think it is Indian citizens? Just because some politicians are saying so for their own gains all Tamilians in Srilanka are not Indian citizen.
Heck, even USA is trying harder than India by using its muscle to block billions of dollars of IMF funds to SL for not caring about ceasefire.
Are you suggesting India should start playing the role of world police as USA.
LTTE is the one who took the life of our beloved leader Rajiv Gandhi who would have taken India to much high in the world. And why should India protect them.
AirWaterandGC
05-10 09:05 PM
Thanks cableman.
I did read that part and hence my question was if I am in the fourth/fifth year of my CA PR when I decide to go to CA, will I be allowed at least in the country.
Another question was if I am in my 4th/5th year and know that it might take me another year before I go to CA, can I apply for CA PR again, even when I already have my CA PR OR if I apply for my CA PR immediately after my current CA PR expires, would I get it again (assuming I have the necessary points)
Thanks again to everyone who tries to shed some light.
I got this from: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/imm-law.html#act12
Permanent residents
Persons who have been admitted to Canada as permanent residents have the right to come to the country and remain here, provided they have not lost that status or it has not been established that they have engaged in activities, such as criminal acts, that would otherwise subject them to removal.
Conditions may be imposed for a certain period on some permanent residents, such as entrepreneurs. A permanent resident must live in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. In some situations, time spent outside Canada may count. All permanent residents must comply with this residency requirement or risk losing their status.
According to the website, you will lose your status if you go to Canada in the 5th year because you won't be able to attain the requirement of living in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. Actually, after you pass your 3rd year, you will be in risk for the permanent status.
I did read that part and hence my question was if I am in the fourth/fifth year of my CA PR when I decide to go to CA, will I be allowed at least in the country.
Another question was if I am in my 4th/5th year and know that it might take me another year before I go to CA, can I apply for CA PR again, even when I already have my CA PR OR if I apply for my CA PR immediately after my current CA PR expires, would I get it again (assuming I have the necessary points)
Thanks again to everyone who tries to shed some light.
I got this from: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/imm-law.html#act12
Permanent residents
Persons who have been admitted to Canada as permanent residents have the right to come to the country and remain here, provided they have not lost that status or it has not been established that they have engaged in activities, such as criminal acts, that would otherwise subject them to removal.
Conditions may be imposed for a certain period on some permanent residents, such as entrepreneurs. A permanent resident must live in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. In some situations, time spent outside Canada may count. All permanent residents must comply with this residency requirement or risk losing their status.
According to the website, you will lose your status if you go to Canada in the 5th year because you won't be able to attain the requirement of living in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. Actually, after you pass your 3rd year, you will be in risk for the permanent status.
2011 free easter bunny clipart
user1205
02-12 01:37 PM
As far as I know the country quotas are followed only in the first 3 quarters of the year. Last year a lot of numbers were used for India/China in the June/July fiasco and ROW used less than the yearly quota. India had I think 3 times the yearly quota in those months. So they're trying to use up as much as they can for ROW this year I guess.
I have the same question. State dept moves the date just so that the visa numbers are used for that category. If a category is retrogressed, then it can't really be "undersubscribed".
This was listed at the bottom of the page in the March VB in state dept's website:
The cut-off date movement for March in several Employment categories has been greater than those experienced in recent months. Advancement of the cut-off dates at this time should prevent a situation later in the fiscal year where there are large amounts of numbers available but not enough time to use them. If the expected increase in CIS number use materializes, future cut-off date movements could slow or stop.
I have the same question. State dept moves the date just so that the visa numbers are used for that category. If a category is retrogressed, then it can't really be "undersubscribed".
This was listed at the bottom of the page in the March VB in state dept's website:
The cut-off date movement for March in several Employment categories has been greater than those experienced in recent months. Advancement of the cut-off dates at this time should prevent a situation later in the fiscal year where there are large amounts of numbers available but not enough time to use them. If the expected increase in CIS number use materializes, future cut-off date movements could slow or stop.
more...
PlainSpeak
01-14 08:17 AM
to some of your points, but
is the response from amitjoey not enough to understand why PlainSpeak's view won't work ?
amitjoey response is good, correct, to the point and more civil than any one else. As you said there are more silent readers who if don't see amitjoey's response will consider IV is trying to do something wrong by harsh response (through their senior members/donors). Just read all comments except amitjoey's the thread will give different view (-ve to IV forum).
When some one reads uncivilized comments they don't just think bad about the person but also get -ve impression about the forum. You are missing important point, just because some one wants to give comments so that silent readers find abt people like plainspeak/gcperm but in reality it works just against the forum nothing else.
And when we want to create a professional forum for a reason/cause, as a forum member we need to maintain some professionalism in our comments. If anyone find any thread is not appropriate respond perfectly like amitjoey or report it to moderator.
As a new member (joined just 2008 and read only reasonable threads) I never know someone GCPerm and anything about his/her good/bad threads. So, it doesn't add any value if senior members fighting on who is who.
I am speaking for benefit of this forum which will benefit every person who join/participate. But if a member doesn't bother or care about what kind of -ve impression they are leaving then what is the real benefit of having that member. Just because that member don't care about having more members doesn't reflect the forum core members view.
You don't agree to my views but your response is nice and civilized and that is what I am talking about. I would say amitjoey's way of response (so do your response to my comment) would help both PlainSpeak and every members who reads the thread to understand what is good/bad for us as group.
One thing I disagree is your rough reality, in the name of rough reality we don't have to write rough wording in a forum where we need more people to join for a cause. You may not want any more member but I don't think that could be the case with IV core members. Why, mostly (not all) people who are in this forum will stop working for the forum after getting GC and we always need new members (may be 1 in 10000) who will add value to the forum.
And I haven't responded to PlainSpeak because I have no knowledge about that topic and I am still understanding/learning it. Also amitjoey's response is more than enough which is civilized and perfect (at least to me). Unless I have something to add to his point I can just keep quiet instead of leaving -ve impression abt the forum.
For any cause as a group we can fight with violence (uncivilized) and without violence (civilized). There is always people for both approach, but as a forum member we need to follow the core members way rather than our own way. And part of user registration we all agree to the terms and one of it is "By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."
I had my own experience in this forum about hateful comments towards me by a senior member/donor. But that particular thread got removed because of so much hateful comments. Once we start accepting hateful comments it won't stop at any level and the forum will be filled with hateful comments. If you feel some thread/comment is not good better respond properly or report to moderator. Why we need to fill this forum with hateful comments when we have tools to avoid it.
My Friend ActAccord thank for saying things the way they are. And i am especially thankfull for the fact that you made it clear that you do NOT yet have an opinion on on topic at hand. People should discuss the pros and cons of any idea and come up with an approach based on that discussion.
From where i am standing i do not see you as a junior member. I am sure that maybe sometime down the line you and i might be on the opposite sides of a discussion and may not agree on an approach but we would still have respect for each others dedication to their point of view.
Now if you have been on this forum for sometime now you know what is going to happen next when everyone wakes up and reads your first post. You will have all these so called senior member (nothing senior about them) and junior members who will come at you from all sides with both fists swinging and abuses so brace youselves and give a fitting reply to anyone who disses you just like how you did to GreyHair down below
is the response from amitjoey not enough to understand why PlainSpeak's view won't work ?
amitjoey response is good, correct, to the point and more civil than any one else. As you said there are more silent readers who if don't see amitjoey's response will consider IV is trying to do something wrong by harsh response (through their senior members/donors). Just read all comments except amitjoey's the thread will give different view (-ve to IV forum).
When some one reads uncivilized comments they don't just think bad about the person but also get -ve impression about the forum. You are missing important point, just because some one wants to give comments so that silent readers find abt people like plainspeak/gcperm but in reality it works just against the forum nothing else.
And when we want to create a professional forum for a reason/cause, as a forum member we need to maintain some professionalism in our comments. If anyone find any thread is not appropriate respond perfectly like amitjoey or report it to moderator.
As a new member (joined just 2008 and read only reasonable threads) I never know someone GCPerm and anything about his/her good/bad threads. So, it doesn't add any value if senior members fighting on who is who.
I am speaking for benefit of this forum which will benefit every person who join/participate. But if a member doesn't bother or care about what kind of -ve impression they are leaving then what is the real benefit of having that member. Just because that member don't care about having more members doesn't reflect the forum core members view.
You don't agree to my views but your response is nice and civilized and that is what I am talking about. I would say amitjoey's way of response (so do your response to my comment) would help both PlainSpeak and every members who reads the thread to understand what is good/bad for us as group.
One thing I disagree is your rough reality, in the name of rough reality we don't have to write rough wording in a forum where we need more people to join for a cause. You may not want any more member but I don't think that could be the case with IV core members. Why, mostly (not all) people who are in this forum will stop working for the forum after getting GC and we always need new members (may be 1 in 10000) who will add value to the forum.
And I haven't responded to PlainSpeak because I have no knowledge about that topic and I am still understanding/learning it. Also amitjoey's response is more than enough which is civilized and perfect (at least to me). Unless I have something to add to his point I can just keep quiet instead of leaving -ve impression abt the forum.
For any cause as a group we can fight with violence (uncivilized) and without violence (civilized). There is always people for both approach, but as a forum member we need to follow the core members way rather than our own way. And part of user registration we all agree to the terms and one of it is "By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."
I had my own experience in this forum about hateful comments towards me by a senior member/donor. But that particular thread got removed because of so much hateful comments. Once we start accepting hateful comments it won't stop at any level and the forum will be filled with hateful comments. If you feel some thread/comment is not good better respond properly or report to moderator. Why we need to fill this forum with hateful comments when we have tools to avoid it.
My Friend ActAccord thank for saying things the way they are. And i am especially thankfull for the fact that you made it clear that you do NOT yet have an opinion on on topic at hand. People should discuss the pros and cons of any idea and come up with an approach based on that discussion.
From where i am standing i do not see you as a junior member. I am sure that maybe sometime down the line you and i might be on the opposite sides of a discussion and may not agree on an approach but we would still have respect for each others dedication to their point of view.
Now if you have been on this forum for sometime now you know what is going to happen next when everyone wakes up and reads your first post. You will have all these so called senior member (nothing senior about them) and junior members who will come at you from all sides with both fists swinging and abuses so brace youselves and give a fitting reply to anyone who disses you just like how you did to GreyHair down below
snathan
08-15 10:35 PM
I gave you green...
You know america will care and care only US interests...and will defend its actions. We all have suffered inexplicable delays in NC/BC (donot know if they honor 180 day rule) but who cares for immigrants....
...peace...
Thats how every country should behave...unfortunately its not happening in our beloved mother country. The terrorist asking for mutton briyani...in other countries he would be made as briyani by this time...:D
You know america will care and care only US interests...and will defend its actions. We all have suffered inexplicable delays in NC/BC (donot know if they honor 180 day rule) but who cares for immigrants....
...peace...
Thats how every country should behave...unfortunately its not happening in our beloved mother country. The terrorist asking for mutton briyani...in other countries he would be made as briyani by this time...:D
more...
dealsnet
09-03 11:37 PM
We cannot judge when some one who is no more. No court will punish any one after death. If he is bad, he will face the final JUDGEMENT with every one.
dealsnet,
You picking on CHANDUV23 is unwarranted. You lack debating skills. Do you have a argument to make against "unprecedented political killings, govt and personal land grabbing, corruption, and opportunistic politics of YSR" ?
dealsnet,
You picking on CHANDUV23 is unwarranted. You lack debating skills. Do you have a argument to make against "unprecedented political killings, govt and personal land grabbing, corruption, and opportunistic politics of YSR" ?
2010 Free Easter Bunny Clipart
JazzByTheBay
02-15 10:44 AM
You can pack your bags and leave. You are here by your own choice, and work within the legal framework of the country. You are free to leave when you please.
The slavery argument doesn't hold.
jazz
Modern Day Slavery in the 21st century
Any person who is restricted from making travel choices, employer choice, personal choices beneficial to himself and his family, just because his employer or the goverment is restricting him in some form to make monetary benefit for itself, is called a slave.
I have reached the critical mass in me to take this up on my own, any legal advice and moral support from you guys would be appreciated.
Thanks
The slavery argument doesn't hold.
jazz
Modern Day Slavery in the 21st century
Any person who is restricted from making travel choices, employer choice, personal choices beneficial to himself and his family, just because his employer or the goverment is restricting him in some form to make monetary benefit for itself, is called a slave.
I have reached the critical mass in me to take this up on my own, any legal advice and moral support from you guys would be appreciated.
Thanks
more...
nogc_noproblem
07-16 01:37 AM
That means, the horizontal spill-over (EB1->EB2->EB3) is the way to go and EB2 I & C will move forward healthily until it becomes current.
So gurus,
The progress has been better than this analysis - so where does this leave us?
Any more thoughts?
So gurus,
The progress has been better than this analysis - so where does this leave us?
Any more thoughts?
hair Easter Clipart Valentine
Subst_labor
03-16 01:24 PM
If the prior experience was related to your field, then I don't see why not. You may want to hurry because if USIS comes with 45-day labor expiration rule soon (which they may), you may not be able to use the prior approved labor.
arent you in conflict with chanduv23's reply? i am stuck between both of the ideas:) not worried about the bill, its not a law yet..
arent you in conflict with chanduv23's reply? i am stuck between both of the ideas:) not worried about the bill, its not a law yet..
more...
rajsenthil
09-04 12:12 PM
He is a religious fanatic. Nothing to do with corruption. PERIOD.
Yup, it is a religious fanatic. Also it must be an insider.
I am still wondering how the full name of "Jayapaul Reddy Vadicherla" is known.
One thing is that the Vadicherla is a Donor and must have given all his details while donating. The insider have access to this information and posted it.
_TrueFact, can you post my full name?
Yup, it is a religious fanatic. Also it must be an insider.
I am still wondering how the full name of "Jayapaul Reddy Vadicherla" is known.
One thing is that the Vadicherla is a Donor and must have given all his details while donating. The insider have access to this information and posted it.
_TrueFact, can you post my full name?
hot Rabbit clip art
ita
03-30 11:02 PM
Kancha Ilaya(Sonia appointed ) is being allowed by the Indian Government to lobby with the UN and US Congress so that caste discrimination in India is taken-up by these bodies. (Indians on their own have come a long way in reducing these caste discrimination but alas these people won't want that dying)It shouldn't be any surprise if we see bunch of International articles on India's disgusting caste issues soon.
Rahul Gandhi/Govt of India invites British politician to Amethi on poverty tourism.Putting it in their own words they were trying to show this foreign minister real India (meaning 'sinking India not shining India' or may be they were trying to tell this British guy look we have managed to keep the country at the same state you left it , if anything we took it to another low level).Amethi has been a constituency represented by that family for generations in Priyanka's words. Forget about country they didn't do much good to their own constituency .
This British guy before he left the country said that Mumbai attacks could have happened because India didn't hand over Kashmir to Pak.He also gave a free although unasked advice ,if such future attacks are not to happen India should reconsider it's stance on Kashmir.
British media was surprised to see that Rahul Gandhi touted as future PM by the party and Indian media with equal excitement didn't want to comment on foreign affairs.Mumbai issue or anything else.
Now every country has it's share of problems..be it poverty or something else.Can you imagine U.S politician inviting French/German politician to view America's worst and media giving it huge coverage?Just imagine what would happen then.
Personally I like both Sonia and Rahul, can't doubt their intension of making India better
Rahul Gandhi/Govt of India invites British politician to Amethi on poverty tourism.Putting it in their own words they were trying to show this foreign minister real India (meaning 'sinking India not shining India' or may be they were trying to tell this British guy look we have managed to keep the country at the same state you left it , if anything we took it to another low level).Amethi has been a constituency represented by that family for generations in Priyanka's words. Forget about country they didn't do much good to their own constituency .
This British guy before he left the country said that Mumbai attacks could have happened because India didn't hand over Kashmir to Pak.He also gave a free although unasked advice ,if such future attacks are not to happen India should reconsider it's stance on Kashmir.
British media was surprised to see that Rahul Gandhi touted as future PM by the party and Indian media with equal excitement didn't want to comment on foreign affairs.Mumbai issue or anything else.
Now every country has it's share of problems..be it poverty or something else.Can you imagine U.S politician inviting French/German politician to view America's worst and media giving it huge coverage?Just imagine what would happen then.
Personally I like both Sonia and Rahul, can't doubt their intension of making India better
more...
house Easter Basket Clip Art
alisa
06-28 08:35 PM
June 28, 2007
USCIS: RUMORS OF EARLY VISA RETROGRESSION
Late Wednesday, rumors emerged that the USCIS may attempt to retrogress the July immigrant visa numbers early in July and reject I- 485 (adjustment of status) applications filed early in the month. USCIS has taken such action already with respect to the �other worker� visa category involving non-professional workers.
Visa availability is based on the U.S. Department of State Visa Bulletin, which is published monthly, not on a rolling basis. If USCIS cuts off visa numbers in mid-month, this would be a clear violation of Federal law and agency policy. If the USCIS were to take this arbitrary action, it would cause significant problems for applicants and employers alike.
If USCIS cuts off applications on a certain date in early July, this will most likely occur without advance warning. In that case, not all applications will be accepted for processing. Be aware that that USCIS will reject an application unless it contains certain minimum supporting documents. For I-485 applications, minimum documents include a completed medical examination and birth certificates (or secondary evidence of birth, which must meet specific USCIS requirements). Applications for dependent spouses must include a marriage certificate. We strongly recommend that I-485 applicants obtain these and other requested documents as soon as possible. Until further notice, please do not plan to travel internationally during the month of July.
We will work as hard and as diligently as possible to get I-485 applications filed quickly. This will require active cooperation by all applicants to obtain needed documents. Again, please understand that the proposed USCIS action is just rumor at this point, but if the USCIS takes such action, it will likely be without warning. Further, it is possible that there could be retroactive rejections of applications once filed. Unfortunately, this is all we know at this time. We do not know when and if any such actions will occur; we will also not know immediately which, if any, cases are rejected once they have been submitted.
The attorneys at XXXXX are shocked and disappointed that the government could take such ill-thought and arbitrary steps and we will work to fight any illegal action by the USCIS. We are continuing to monitor the USCIS� actions and will provide updates as they become available
Folks.
It might be a cruel joke that USCIS plays on us.
They can do whatever they want.
For heaven's sake, lets just accept it, and hope for the best.
USCIS: RUMORS OF EARLY VISA RETROGRESSION
Late Wednesday, rumors emerged that the USCIS may attempt to retrogress the July immigrant visa numbers early in July and reject I- 485 (adjustment of status) applications filed early in the month. USCIS has taken such action already with respect to the �other worker� visa category involving non-professional workers.
Visa availability is based on the U.S. Department of State Visa Bulletin, which is published monthly, not on a rolling basis. If USCIS cuts off visa numbers in mid-month, this would be a clear violation of Federal law and agency policy. If the USCIS were to take this arbitrary action, it would cause significant problems for applicants and employers alike.
If USCIS cuts off applications on a certain date in early July, this will most likely occur without advance warning. In that case, not all applications will be accepted for processing. Be aware that that USCIS will reject an application unless it contains certain minimum supporting documents. For I-485 applications, minimum documents include a completed medical examination and birth certificates (or secondary evidence of birth, which must meet specific USCIS requirements). Applications for dependent spouses must include a marriage certificate. We strongly recommend that I-485 applicants obtain these and other requested documents as soon as possible. Until further notice, please do not plan to travel internationally during the month of July.
We will work as hard and as diligently as possible to get I-485 applications filed quickly. This will require active cooperation by all applicants to obtain needed documents. Again, please understand that the proposed USCIS action is just rumor at this point, but if the USCIS takes such action, it will likely be without warning. Further, it is possible that there could be retroactive rejections of applications once filed. Unfortunately, this is all we know at this time. We do not know when and if any such actions will occur; we will also not know immediately which, if any, cases are rejected once they have been submitted.
The attorneys at XXXXX are shocked and disappointed that the government could take such ill-thought and arbitrary steps and we will work to fight any illegal action by the USCIS. We are continuing to monitor the USCIS� actions and will provide updates as they become available
Folks.
It might be a cruel joke that USCIS plays on us.
They can do whatever they want.
For heaven's sake, lets just accept it, and hope for the best.
tattoo Easter Bunny
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.
more...
pictures in an Easter Bunny Costume
nogreencard4ever
09-04 09:09 PM
hey stop the nonsense. u r trying to argue with everyone. u r playing with people emotions.
why don't u just stop the arguments over here. just leave the dead person in peace.
if u don't like him just go and talk with someone else who also doesn't like him in ur family or with ur friends. i think u r spending too much time bashing YSR and his son.
r u considering urself as a "SAINT" , if u r saint, u have right to talk about other persons.
otherwise u should shut ur mouth. Its good for u and ur family. u used the word "KUKKA CHAVU" that's not at all accepted. i think u should keep ur tongue when u r using those words.
why don't u just stop the arguments over here. just leave the dead person in peace.
if u don't like him just go and talk with someone else who also doesn't like him in ur family or with ur friends. i think u r spending too much time bashing YSR and his son.
r u considering urself as a "SAINT" , if u r saint, u have right to talk about other persons.
otherwise u should shut ur mouth. Its good for u and ur family. u used the word "KUKKA CHAVU" that's not at all accepted. i think u should keep ur tongue when u r using those words.
dresses Easter Bunny Clipart #90496 by
Legal
07-25 06:36 PM
Yeah Ron Gotcher is speculating, but there is some credibility to what he is saying. He did predict the rapid movement of PDs toward the end of the year, in fact at one point he was extremely optimistic more than what happened to date. So he did have some insight into the inner workings (or rather non-workings!) of the USCIS. He also openly shared his interaction with Charlie Oppenheim.
This is why people should not get so excited now. What EB2I got is a little hope, for most it will be false hope, a select few have green hope, but we will only know them by Sept. in retrospect.
For the rest of us it will be back to the drawing board, oops message board. My feeling is things are likely to be somewhere between the extremely pessimistic projections of Ron Gotcher and the extremely optimistic projections of VLRao.
I suspect the PD will move back to the April 2004 cutoff and then move forward slowly as spillover allows, so in other words at a rate faster than in the past. I stand by my view that we will need most of next year and perhaps some of 2010 spillover to quench the thirst of EB2I and C.
I don't think the point Ron made that if everything was current it would take 5 plus years for USCIS to clear the back log is correct. If it really is the case then we are more badly screwed than any of us realise and it goes totally against the statistics the USCIS has been leaking about the number of pending cases. Which many of us have number crunched already.
The argument that EB2-1 PD will retrogress to 2002 or 2004 does not seem to be based on numbers, but a random speculation. Doesn't not undermine vdlrao's projections in a credible way
Spillover may not be there, or may be there but when the new quota opens up October 1st, new minimum numbers will be available for EB2-I. Worst case scenario, dates will remain static or very minimal backward movement. It looks like the black hole is the time between late 2004 and early 2005, pre-PERM.Other than saying there is massive inventory of backlogged cases, Ron has not given better/ actual numbers of likely pending EB-2 I cases.
This is why people should not get so excited now. What EB2I got is a little hope, for most it will be false hope, a select few have green hope, but we will only know them by Sept. in retrospect.
For the rest of us it will be back to the drawing board, oops message board. My feeling is things are likely to be somewhere between the extremely pessimistic projections of Ron Gotcher and the extremely optimistic projections of VLRao.
I suspect the PD will move back to the April 2004 cutoff and then move forward slowly as spillover allows, so in other words at a rate faster than in the past. I stand by my view that we will need most of next year and perhaps some of 2010 spillover to quench the thirst of EB2I and C.
I don't think the point Ron made that if everything was current it would take 5 plus years for USCIS to clear the back log is correct. If it really is the case then we are more badly screwed than any of us realise and it goes totally against the statistics the USCIS has been leaking about the number of pending cases. Which many of us have number crunched already.
The argument that EB2-1 PD will retrogress to 2002 or 2004 does not seem to be based on numbers, but a random speculation. Doesn't not undermine vdlrao's projections in a credible way
Spillover may not be there, or may be there but when the new quota opens up October 1st, new minimum numbers will be available for EB2-I. Worst case scenario, dates will remain static or very minimal backward movement. It looks like the black hole is the time between late 2004 and early 2005, pre-PERM.Other than saying there is massive inventory of backlogged cases, Ron has not given better/ actual numbers of likely pending EB-2 I cases.
more...
makeup Easter bunny
BharatPremi
12-13 01:22 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
I am not a lawyer. Here is my understanding as a lay man:
What is constitution?
A: At some point of time, group of people, with having confidence from
majority of people, with a centralizing tone of some common
philosophy/ethics, create the framework of regulations with a goal to make
society orderely, to make sure that common good of people remains
prevalent and maintained and assures the penalty for deed done agianst
common good and breaking the common order of the society. Wise ones,
accepting the limit of individual capabilities, understanding the different
needs of the society at different time, keep windows opened to improve
the "base" constitution with making sure all checks and balances do not
allow the misuse and hecnce the word "Amendment/s" have the existence.
Now there has to be some base ground when base consitution is prepared.
What that could be? During the process of human evolution, with accumulated experience of centuries, human societies have established some common practices which we now name "Ethics" and amazingly many are similar across many culture. For example, Burglary is considered crime in each and every society without any question or difference. Why?.. I do not like somebody snatches away my chain as in my mind I have established my ownership to that chain. You also do not like it somebody snatches away your car.If there are only two humans on earth, things might have been simpler considering one is burglar of those two. But here in society now every body has to establish the proof that s/he is aowner of something and somebody else snatches that away then it is not good. So wise ones decided (to keep
controlled and organized society) made a rule : "From today we will call the act of snatching something away from somebody an act of crime if the person can prove that s/he is the original owner of that thing and let's call that person a "burglar" because he snatched away the thing" Now it was suited to everybody because it was protecting their belonging so that was established as "Ethics" and stories of "criminal behaviour"were created by every society for snatching away the thing from somebody. That make every human understand the fact that snatching away is bad thing
(if done openly:), If lawyer snatches away big money from your pocket .. no it is not a crime or that matter USCIS... just kidding :))
Now making story short, after 200/300 years of evolution, USA has legally decided to push the "Ethics" of employment: "Equivalent Oppertunity to all Citizens without race, creed, color, country of origin" and "Skill is the criteria of an employment" Now when these ethical and progressive principals are already implemented for common good of citizens, it should be implemented for foreign labor (non immigrants/immigrants).
Can we "constitutionally" label some person that, hey you will be called burglar if you snatches thing away from US born person but you will not be called burglar if you snatches away the thing from pakistani or Sweedish or Chiense who has just arrived in this country?
So bootmline: If at all constitution is permitting "per country based ceilings" then
we will have to fight to change that because it is not right.
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
I am not a lawyer. Here is my understanding as a lay man:
What is constitution?
A: At some point of time, group of people, with having confidence from
majority of people, with a centralizing tone of some common
philosophy/ethics, create the framework of regulations with a goal to make
society orderely, to make sure that common good of people remains
prevalent and maintained and assures the penalty for deed done agianst
common good and breaking the common order of the society. Wise ones,
accepting the limit of individual capabilities, understanding the different
needs of the society at different time, keep windows opened to improve
the "base" constitution with making sure all checks and balances do not
allow the misuse and hecnce the word "Amendment/s" have the existence.
Now there has to be some base ground when base consitution is prepared.
What that could be? During the process of human evolution, with accumulated experience of centuries, human societies have established some common practices which we now name "Ethics" and amazingly many are similar across many culture. For example, Burglary is considered crime in each and every society without any question or difference. Why?.. I do not like somebody snatches away my chain as in my mind I have established my ownership to that chain. You also do not like it somebody snatches away your car.If there are only two humans on earth, things might have been simpler considering one is burglar of those two. But here in society now every body has to establish the proof that s/he is aowner of something and somebody else snatches that away then it is not good. So wise ones decided (to keep
controlled and organized society) made a rule : "From today we will call the act of snatching something away from somebody an act of crime if the person can prove that s/he is the original owner of that thing and let's call that person a "burglar" because he snatched away the thing" Now it was suited to everybody because it was protecting their belonging so that was established as "Ethics" and stories of "criminal behaviour"were created by every society for snatching away the thing from somebody. That make every human understand the fact that snatching away is bad thing
(if done openly:), If lawyer snatches away big money from your pocket .. no it is not a crime or that matter USCIS... just kidding :))
Now making story short, after 200/300 years of evolution, USA has legally decided to push the "Ethics" of employment: "Equivalent Oppertunity to all Citizens without race, creed, color, country of origin" and "Skill is the criteria of an employment" Now when these ethical and progressive principals are already implemented for common good of citizens, it should be implemented for foreign labor (non immigrants/immigrants).
Can we "constitutionally" label some person that, hey you will be called burglar if you snatches thing away from US born person but you will not be called burglar if you snatches away the thing from pakistani or Sweedish or Chiense who has just arrived in this country?
So bootmline: If at all constitution is permitting "per country based ceilings" then
we will have to fight to change that because it is not right.
girlfriend Clip Art - Easter Bunnies
kumjay
06-27 04:30 PM
Columbus brought Rajiv Khanna and Sheela Murthy to create/interpret all the immigration rules for this new found land. When Columbus landed here, he declared all native americans as illegal premanent residents. All of them had to go through a change of status process (I-539) to become legal permament residents. Well.....native Indian did not have latestes or any pay stubs...so they had to go out of the country and re-enter to claim their legal status.....that's why they moved to South Dacota. That time South Dacota wasn't a part of USA......blah blah blah...
hairstyles Easter bunny clipart
aps
09-23 02:26 AM
Most of us are waiting in line for years by sacrificing their career growth and earnings with the so called consulting companies. what for? To get a green card by buying a home here? Is it sensible? common. Bring some common solution to everybody, not for few. If you want to leave some IV members behind, then you may continue with this idea. your proposal DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE to me.
Lasantha
02-13 12:00 PM
LOL - Which side are you on though? There are two schools of thought in this thread. :cool:
I am also with you guys.
Tinku:rolleyes:
I am also with you guys.
Tinku:rolleyes:
Marphad
03-29 08:21 PM
My point is that a person/politician should be judged by the actions/governance and not their lineage. Congress is corrupt like most parties and that discussion is valid (though I would rather see this forum only used for immigration matters...).
I can certainly provide hundreds of links to make this a dividing post but I dont have a propensity for it. My point was to a show a mirror to people who post some ridiculous posts but get away since they seem to be in the majority or atleast seem to be the loudest. Using the measures of US, a lot of what is said in non-immigration matters on this forum would be deemed so racist.
As for Kashmir hindus, I truly wishes Justice is done to them. They are the Children of kashmir. Just like I wish justice is done for every person in India whether the crime be done by extremists or State actors. As for the non-existent discrimination of minorities, I hope you are right but trying to silence people who raise such issues is no way to provide justice. Even to this day, discrimination against blacks is a matter of grave concern in this country. A strength of a society/democracy is the treatment of the weakest/minorities.
And what is the qualification of Rahul or Sonia other than being so-called Gandhi-Nehru?
I can certainly provide hundreds of links to make this a dividing post but I dont have a propensity for it. My point was to a show a mirror to people who post some ridiculous posts but get away since they seem to be in the majority or atleast seem to be the loudest. Using the measures of US, a lot of what is said in non-immigration matters on this forum would be deemed so racist.
As for Kashmir hindus, I truly wishes Justice is done to them. They are the Children of kashmir. Just like I wish justice is done for every person in India whether the crime be done by extremists or State actors. As for the non-existent discrimination of minorities, I hope you are right but trying to silence people who raise such issues is no way to provide justice. Even to this day, discrimination against blacks is a matter of grave concern in this country. A strength of a society/democracy is the treatment of the weakest/minorities.
And what is the qualification of Rahul or Sonia other than being so-called Gandhi-Nehru?
No comments:
Post a Comment