priderock
04-26 12:53 AM
That was a no go for me. The company's Lawyer advised against it.
wallpaper NEW VIDEO: NICKI MINAJ FT.
waitingmygc
01-14 12:43 AM
Working with direct vendor will work. Please read:
Page 5.
Long Term Placement at a Third-Party Work Site.
Page 5.
Long Term Placement at a Third-Party Work Site.
newtoearth
05-03 01:14 AM
...
2011 Nicki Minaj 2011 New Year#39;s
neocor
01-09 01:33 PM
I just got to this site via from immigration portal.
I have been reading a lot in the other forum and here about the ways to cure retrogression. Lobbying for more Visa's and other things that were part of the S.1932 bill are fine, however these things are not going to solve the retrogression problem even if such a bill gets passed.
No one seems to be talking about the real problem that is Labor Substitution. Abolishing Labor Substitution will itself take care of every retrogression problem.
The INS does not have the right tools to police the misue of this rule. This is resutling in a lot of problems for even those employees whose Labor's get substituted even if they are still working in the same company.
Any effort to reform immigration should start with first reforming the Labor Substitution rule (if not completely abolish).
I know that all the companies/employers and the lawyers community are against removing the Labor substitution, therefore it will never be removed, but atleast it should be reformed so that it can be better policed so that no one is able to misuse it and play with peoples lives. And in turn add to retregression.
Following reforms are needed in Labor Substitution.
- First thing in the Labor Substitution reform is related to the Priority date. The Priority Date for a substituted Labor should the date when the Labor is substituted (or the I-140 filing date). It should not be be the date when the Labor was originally filed. This in itself will solve 90% of the problems related to retrogression.
- When a Labor is substituted it should be verified immediately to find if there is any I-140 or I-485 that is pending based on this Labor. If so then the Labor should be rejected immediately. Currently this is not done at the time the Labor is substituted, therefore the resulting 485 filing just amounts to add up into the backlog of Visa Number requirement, until the priority date becomes current for this 485.
- If an employee invokes the AC21 then that Labor should not be allowed to be substituted.
- There should be a limit to the time until which a Labor can be substituted. This could be debatable and could have other consequences, as the INS could invalidate any GC application that is been pending for more than the this duration.
In short the Labour substitution rule is in a mess and is getting miused a lot. People are getting fooled by the employers, and ultimately its making the retrogression more worse.
neocor
I have been reading a lot in the other forum and here about the ways to cure retrogression. Lobbying for more Visa's and other things that were part of the S.1932 bill are fine, however these things are not going to solve the retrogression problem even if such a bill gets passed.
No one seems to be talking about the real problem that is Labor Substitution. Abolishing Labor Substitution will itself take care of every retrogression problem.
The INS does not have the right tools to police the misue of this rule. This is resutling in a lot of problems for even those employees whose Labor's get substituted even if they are still working in the same company.
Any effort to reform immigration should start with first reforming the Labor Substitution rule (if not completely abolish).
I know that all the companies/employers and the lawyers community are against removing the Labor substitution, therefore it will never be removed, but atleast it should be reformed so that it can be better policed so that no one is able to misuse it and play with peoples lives. And in turn add to retregression.
Following reforms are needed in Labor Substitution.
- First thing in the Labor Substitution reform is related to the Priority date. The Priority Date for a substituted Labor should the date when the Labor is substituted (or the I-140 filing date). It should not be be the date when the Labor was originally filed. This in itself will solve 90% of the problems related to retrogression.
- When a Labor is substituted it should be verified immediately to find if there is any I-140 or I-485 that is pending based on this Labor. If so then the Labor should be rejected immediately. Currently this is not done at the time the Labor is substituted, therefore the resulting 485 filing just amounts to add up into the backlog of Visa Number requirement, until the priority date becomes current for this 485.
- If an employee invokes the AC21 then that Labor should not be allowed to be substituted.
- There should be a limit to the time until which a Labor can be substituted. This could be debatable and could have other consequences, as the INS could invalidate any GC application that is been pending for more than the this duration.
In short the Labour substitution rule is in a mess and is getting miused a lot. People are getting fooled by the employers, and ultimately its making the retrogression more worse.
neocor
more...
BharatPremi
05-19 09:33 PM
http://books.google.com/books?id=i4b6xmZI_XoC&dq=would+India+help+Sri+lanka+tamils&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=plUTSsCPFoS08ASj_LCIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13#PPA34,M1
BharatPremi
12-14 12:51 PM
If they change the current law to favor Indians, then it will be disciminatory to other nationals. Think the other way..
You may be almost 100% right and everybody is trying to take the sense out of this. Lazy*and Mark almost have given the proof that "We can't do this"..
Good, we will not have a problem if we get assured about this 100%.
But one thing I do not understand is your interpretation (in quots)... If at all anything we are asking is what "Remove Per Country based ceilings" but how can somebody with high skill translate that into what you quoted?
If that happens, Indians will be benefited , yes that is not a favor, and if at all for the sake of argument even if we "tag" the word "favored"...Chinese,Mexicans,Philipinos will also be "favored".. So if they remove this ceiling then in reality it would be a "Equal ground for every national" And in that nobody can argue that "It is discriminatory to other nationals".
You may be almost 100% right and everybody is trying to take the sense out of this. Lazy*and Mark almost have given the proof that "We can't do this"..
Good, we will not have a problem if we get assured about this 100%.
But one thing I do not understand is your interpretation (in quots)... If at all anything we are asking is what "Remove Per Country based ceilings" but how can somebody with high skill translate that into what you quoted?
If that happens, Indians will be benefited , yes that is not a favor, and if at all for the sake of argument even if we "tag" the word "favored"...Chinese,Mexicans,Philipinos will also be "favored".. So if they remove this ceiling then in reality it would be a "Equal ground for every national" And in that nobody can argue that "It is discriminatory to other nationals".
more...
gc4me
02-13 12:16 PM
immigration-law.com posted country wise EB visa allocation for the year of 2005. For example, Nepal used only 70 EB3 visas. Whereas country limit is 7%. In that case how EB3 Nepal is retrogressed?
Can we sue USCIS? Let's discuss.
In that case, let's hire an attorney.
Can we sue USCIS? Let's discuss.
In that case, let's hire an attorney.
2010 dresses what is nicki minaj
immigration_indian
07-04 01:43 AM
I sent it to CNN I REPORT
Thanks
Thanks
more...
John333
07-18 07:00 AM
Thank you for your answer.
Kindly let me know how to contact you.
Kindly let me know how to contact you.
hair I LOVE LOVE LOVE NICKI MINAJ!
chi_shark
01-25 03:06 PM
so you are saying your benefits are not worth $12000? Then whose mistake is it that you parted with it?
From the day I came to this country , I have spent around $12,000 on immigration including H1-Bs, filing GC, APs, EADs extra. Not to mention the traveling for visa stamps and whole other shit load of expenses. I guess most of people who paid for filing GC did spent same amount of money.
Hell ya, Some one got to be benefiting from my $12000.
From the day I came to this country , I have spent around $12,000 on immigration including H1-Bs, filing GC, APs, EADs extra. Not to mention the traveling for visa stamps and whole other shit load of expenses. I guess most of people who paid for filing GC did spent same amount of money.
Hell ya, Some one got to be benefiting from my $12000.
more...
Mani
07-29 04:02 PM
Do CP applicants go through Name checks and back ground checking ? If yes, why is it faster ?
hot Nicki Minaj New Years Eve
raveen
08-02 06:02 PM
Hello sir, I am on H1B, a new company is hiring me and they have little knowledge about h1b issues, my h1b transfer is not filed yet, they are 100% sure that they r gonna hire me, but I haven't decided whther to work with them or not, the other day I went to their office to fillout the application for background check but they made me fill out all the forms that a candidate has to fill during the hiring process, they went ahead and filled my I-9 and w-4 forms too. I was thinking that it's all a process of pre-hiring,but after coming home I did a little research and found out that I-9 has to be filled after they transfer my h1b, do you think is it gonna be a problem?I e-mailed them not to put me in the system, did I violate any law by getting hired by them before even my visa transfer process is started?ofcourse I didn't start my work and I am not going to start until my visa tranfer is done. The employment is at will and I didn't sign any contract with them, do you think they will create any problems for me in future(if they want to)?b'cos I haven't decided to work wth them yet and I may tell them that I am not gonna join them. Please advice me I am really tensed.
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
more...
house Nicki Minaj tops over previous
akred
02-15 11:11 PM
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
tattoo Nicki Minaj Has A Lot of New
BharatPremi
12-13 04:27 PM
we, as non citizens, obviously do not have all the rights that the citizens possess. We don't know whether this rule is or is not constitutional (And as someone rightly pointed out that the expertise of a constitutional attorney is required).
However if it can be shown that certain citizens/corporations ( for example microsoft, google etc who also make efforts and lobby congress to change the law ) are unduly disadvantaged by this per country cap, then they can be plaintiff. So in a sense, we have allies in the corporate sector with tons of money (and who want to make more!) So they might be willing to support us,
if it is indeed found that the rule can be challenged.
Let's assume that it can not be fought within US Constitutional framework then do we have a choice to bring this to international court level? Can US prove that keeping per country immigration quota for EB categories is not a discrimination but a policy to protect its citizens or per say to protect its industry/economy?
However if it can be shown that certain citizens/corporations ( for example microsoft, google etc who also make efforts and lobby congress to change the law ) are unduly disadvantaged by this per country cap, then they can be plaintiff. So in a sense, we have allies in the corporate sector with tons of money (and who want to make more!) So they might be willing to support us,
if it is indeed found that the rule can be challenged.
Let's assume that it can not be fought within US Constitutional framework then do we have a choice to bring this to international court level? Can US prove that keeping per country immigration quota for EB categories is not a discrimination but a policy to protect its citizens or per say to protect its industry/economy?
more...
pictures Nicki Minaj New Years Eve
cygent
12-19 07:11 PM
Thanks Cygent for posting it ...I guess there is some hope after all .. ..
Yes, there always will be, Thanks albertpinto. To quote Shawshank Redemption - Andy Dufresne: [in letter to Red] "Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies."
Good Weekend Everybody!
Yes, there always will be, Thanks albertpinto. To quote Shawshank Redemption - Andy Dufresne: [in letter to Red] "Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies."
Good Weekend Everybody!
dresses Nicki Minaj New Year#39;s Eve
Lasantha
02-15 03:08 PM
Excellent point brother!
Human nature is what tends to create the monopoly. That's the reason for having laws, we know favorism will always exist but a law would prevent it from going over the limit. The way you want it we'll have whites-only-business, asians-only-business and so on..
When you are tired of this discussion you should ask to stop the ones who started it saying their people are better and brighter than others and hence deserve larger immigration volume, before you ask to stop the people who answer them.
Human nature is what tends to create the monopoly. That's the reason for having laws, we know favorism will always exist but a law would prevent it from going over the limit. The way you want it we'll have whites-only-business, asians-only-business and so on..
When you are tired of this discussion you should ask to stop the ones who started it saying their people are better and brighter than others and hence deserve larger immigration volume, before you ask to stop the people who answer them.
more...
makeup nickiminaj new nov hop
fide_champ
08-17 01:50 PM
I agree with all of you that this is not worth talking. Instead channelize your efforts in supporting organization to contact lawmakers and make advocacy efforts.
How is the other one better than this topic?
How is the other one better than this topic?
girlfriend new-nicki-minaj-photos-2010-
unitednations
02-13 03:34 PM
I interpreted that as allowing a country to go over the overall 7% limit in the total EB categories.....Which conforms to what USCIS did in 2005....USCIS allowed much larger than 7% from India that year...and they were within law...( Of course that can be litigated against if someone raises an objection ......)
So if my interpretation applies and after reform there are 290K total visas available then there is a decent chance of EB2/EB3 India China to at least come to 2005 PD levels if not current...
If they changed the law to have 300,000 visas but there is 400,000 people going for greencard; then there would still be retrogression. The unused visas from ROW would not get allocated quarterly but in the fourth quarter.
So if my interpretation applies and after reform there are 290K total visas available then there is a decent chance of EB2/EB3 India China to at least come to 2005 PD levels if not current...
If they changed the law to have 300,000 visas but there is 400,000 people going for greencard; then there would still be retrogression. The unused visas from ROW would not get allocated quarterly but in the fourth quarter.
hairstyles Nicki Minaj with new hairdo.
tonyHK12
01-13 02:53 PM
Do you think some one would go to all this length of providing helpful posts and do all the drege work all to just convince you. Please do not think so high about yourselves. As i said before to scare you all i need to do is write one post and that is not my strength that is you guys weakness whcih is on display here.
You've got to be high or sick or both - go see a doctor. Right now you're just throwing trash around.
great so you're trying to incite arguments between members and calling people names. you just proved my point. well don't waste time making empty threats or inciting people on forums.
You can take your trash somewhere else.
If you had any ideas you should have talked to your IV state rep in the last 4 years, it doesn't matter what you post.
You've got to be high or sick or both - go see a doctor. Right now you're just throwing trash around.
great so you're trying to incite arguments between members and calling people names. you just proved my point. well don't waste time making empty threats or inciting people on forums.
You can take your trash somewhere else.
If you had any ideas you should have talked to your IV state rep in the last 4 years, it doesn't matter what you post.
Legal
07-25 09:13 PM
Next years numbers are not consequential to EB2I movement to be honest. Any realistic movement will depend on spillover. Consider that EB2I is statutorily limited to about 2800 visas(inclusive of family members) without spillover. Whereas spillover has the potential to contribute tens of thousands of visas.
Very true. My speculation :) is most EB2-I upto mid 2006 will be cleared up and the puny new numbers will trickle to keep the PD around June 2006, or slightly earlier rather than going to 2004 or earlier.
Very true. My speculation :) is most EB2-I upto mid 2006 will be cleared up and the puny new numbers will trickle to keep the PD around June 2006, or slightly earlier rather than going to 2004 or earlier.
kondur_007
07-26 06:04 PM
I dont think the situation is that bleak. What would happen when EB3 ROW is unable to use up all the spillovers from EB2? The excess would go to EB3 I, right?
This is exactly the point which is not clear and therefore, asking for verticle spillover may not benefit EB3 I.
What you are asking for is "verticle spill" till it comes to EB3 ROW and then spill it "horizontally" to EB3 I, then only EB3 I would benefit. (although USCIS did this in the past, there is no logic that can explain it)
If they re-interprete the spill and make it verticle, it will go EB2 ROW -> EB 3 ROW -> EB2 I -> EB3 I (pure verticle spill) ; In this case, EB3 I gets nothing but EB2 I looses with some benefit to EB3 ROW. And remember, verticle spill from ROW will need to go equally to India and China...
At the end of the day, if you look at the big picture, I think horizontal or verticle spills are not likely to make any difference to the backlog of EB3 I. What we need is more visa number. Mechanism (recapture, STEM exemption etc) does not matter. Also we neet to unite and work on getting our agenda in the CIR that is likely to be awakened once elections are over.
This is exactly the point which is not clear and therefore, asking for verticle spillover may not benefit EB3 I.
What you are asking for is "verticle spill" till it comes to EB3 ROW and then spill it "horizontally" to EB3 I, then only EB3 I would benefit. (although USCIS did this in the past, there is no logic that can explain it)
If they re-interprete the spill and make it verticle, it will go EB2 ROW -> EB 3 ROW -> EB2 I -> EB3 I (pure verticle spill) ; In this case, EB3 I gets nothing but EB2 I looses with some benefit to EB3 ROW. And remember, verticle spill from ROW will need to go equally to India and China...
At the end of the day, if you look at the big picture, I think horizontal or verticle spills are not likely to make any difference to the backlog of EB3 I. What we need is more visa number. Mechanism (recapture, STEM exemption etc) does not matter. Also we neet to unite and work on getting our agenda in the CIR that is likely to be awakened once elections are over.
No comments:
Post a Comment