jungalee43
12-17 08:20 AM
Thanks for the update. No need to reveal any more details. At least I know the e-mails that I sent made their way to some one who matters.
We have taken these ideas to executive and legislative branches of the government. Our suggestions/proposals have been taken up at the top most level. This has been discussed more than few times with favorable consideration. Without being able to share the specifics, we have received extremely positive feedback for our suggestions. Specific events have to occur before this and similar ideas could possibly be considered in the new administration.
Thanks,
We have taken these ideas to executive and legislative branches of the government. Our suggestions/proposals have been taken up at the top most level. This has been discussed more than few times with favorable consideration. Without being able to share the specifics, we have received extremely positive feedback for our suggestions. Specific events have to occur before this and similar ideas could possibly be considered in the new administration.
Thanks,
wallpaper Media and Sean Parker#39;s
soljabhai
12-14 05:34 PM
100$
mariusp
03-29 02:19 PM
OK, I've done some more homework and this is what I found in the proposed rule text:
III. Proposed Amendments to the Permanent Labor Certification
Regulations
The first amendment would prohibit the substitution of
alien beneficiaries on pending applications for permanent labor
certification and on approved permanent labor certifications not yet
filed with DHS.
Basically it says that the rule applies to:
(i) pending labor certification applications and
(ii) approved labor certification which have not yet been filed with USCIS
So it looks like you won't be affected if your case is already pending with the USCIS.
III. Proposed Amendments to the Permanent Labor Certification
Regulations
The first amendment would prohibit the substitution of
alien beneficiaries on pending applications for permanent labor
certification and on approved permanent labor certifications not yet
filed with DHS.
Basically it says that the rule applies to:
(i) pending labor certification applications and
(ii) approved labor certification which have not yet been filed with USCIS
So it looks like you won't be affected if your case is already pending with the USCIS.
2011 Sean Parker discovers Facebook
![sean parker facebook. quot;[Sean Parker] looked at him](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tZWIXRW6qMUTTKhDq1vJDTca9BqP50GLwrguARD0e75U-Jku4iw49qTz1lzxriRw7wCaQMjsA3paLsjQqwov_3iMh7mAckXdbdVYggwwBc7uu0Lw-0aAmnpQeOPtz6ZvaRQymFaNAUfCc-pToAsc-PfV0maTi6giX3CNLWC9QnOvhu4YNAP03JfrwJiziaTNysCyBPrcSnGhrPNbFdJlDHsEDLITbx-VOfA_hsktSyhUF2WwTEcsBqS1qHn8ce2YoIDuTZZk8J0MWMjSH2rzL0tbk1JIZvdTTpM6mTo-HdmHabWcf6NjV7JJk0mXjuDQi_mBJmng0QSfAIUryZg8UE-Eu7j0s=s0-d "quot;[Sean Parker] looked at him")
deepakjain
08-15 10:17 AM
If we those who have worked here, paid taxes , abided the law, followed the law of land once we return from India many of us have been questioned. Though as per us nothing might have changed like employer, salary, position, residential address etc etc... still many of our friends are detainted and asked to proved documental proof....{If we who have stayed here for years are detained} then why not SRK or any other person.....
After staying here for 9 years, I was detained in 2007 for 1 hour for questioning.....that way US has more proof about me for past 9 years then SRK or any other Indian bollywood stars....
After staying here for 9 years, I was detained in 2007 for 1 hour for questioning.....that way US has more proof about me for past 9 years then SRK or any other Indian bollywood stars....
more...
smuggymba
07-26 07:15 PM
I am not with Amway or Quixtar but I think the folks with Amway/Quixtar are under represented on this thread and it's not fair :-)
Just to add another dimention to this thread I will play the devil's advocate :D
Here I go ...
You guys are all wasting your free time bitching on this thread where as we are spending all our free time growing our business. We will retire early as we would make $xxxx/month for nothing when we turn 40 and dont need to work anymore where as all you guys bitching about Amway / Quixtar will still be working hard at your jobs till 60.
What's your response ?
:D:D:D:D
Anyone can make money in a ponzi scheme..quixtar people just stalk and talk to strangers and ask for their phone number.
Respect other people. Sorry if this offends you.
Just to add another dimention to this thread I will play the devil's advocate :D
Here I go ...
You guys are all wasting your free time bitching on this thread where as we are spending all our free time growing our business. We will retire early as we would make $xxxx/month for nothing when we turn 40 and dont need to work anymore where as all you guys bitching about Amway / Quixtar will still be working hard at your jobs till 60.
What's your response ?
:D:D:D:D
Anyone can make money in a ponzi scheme..quixtar people just stalk and talk to strangers and ask for their phone number.
Respect other people. Sorry if this offends you.
paskal
12-13 12:02 PM
as always Mark!
There may or may not be constitution grounds to challenge the law, I've thought about this too, however from a pragmatic point of view....
1) The money needed to pay the lawyers would likely be more than for lobbying. Importantly money for legal costs is best to be on hand -- i.e. good cash flow, otherwise you risk missing legal deadlines. It would mean diverting money from lobbying. If we were flush with cash e.g. every member paid just $100 per year this would work.
2) Even among members of congress that are behind us, several have reservations about removing country cap (although they are willing to raise it).
3) EB3 ROW is retrogressed anyway. India EB3 is about May 2001, and ROW EB3 Oct 2002. The effect of only removing country quota would be put EB3 generally at about Oct 2001.
The way to move forward for all is to increase total through put, e.g. raise caps, remove dependents from caps, recapture unused quota, tie caps to multiple of H1B quota. For ROW it would move steadily forward, and India move and then would jump forward every 4th quarter with massive spill over from ROW.
As I said I'm not against the idea in principle, just being pragmatic.
There may or may not be constitution grounds to challenge the law, I've thought about this too, however from a pragmatic point of view....
1) The money needed to pay the lawyers would likely be more than for lobbying. Importantly money for legal costs is best to be on hand -- i.e. good cash flow, otherwise you risk missing legal deadlines. It would mean diverting money from lobbying. If we were flush with cash e.g. every member paid just $100 per year this would work.
2) Even among members of congress that are behind us, several have reservations about removing country cap (although they are willing to raise it).
3) EB3 ROW is retrogressed anyway. India EB3 is about May 2001, and ROW EB3 Oct 2002. The effect of only removing country quota would be put EB3 generally at about Oct 2001.
The way to move forward for all is to increase total through put, e.g. raise caps, remove dependents from caps, recapture unused quota, tie caps to multiple of H1B quota. For ROW it would move steadily forward, and India move and then would jump forward every 4th quarter with massive spill over from ROW.
As I said I'm not against the idea in principle, just being pragmatic.
more...
NNReddy
09-03 06:06 PM
It's a sad day indeed for India(and AP in particular) to loose a dynamic leader with a vision. Go to every village in Andhra and ask them are they better off now compared to six years ago. YSR did a lot to AP, would have done much more if he lived.
He made money, most of it legally, by establishing companies and getting contracts and positioning them for growth. Everyone had opportunity to do it. He also did a lot for poor people. Show me any other politician in india who had the vision or energy YSR has. Now that he died, it's really sad that we come up with so many things against him.
Look at US media/people, kennedy died last week, did they say everything he got was because he was born as kennedy, he is indeed born into the family and family choose him as a senator when JFK became president. he became senator because of his birth, but he did lot of good, fought for health care, immigration and against war.
It's not how you got the opportunity, but what you did with opportunity. YSR was born in middle class family, he climbed the ladder thru hard work. kennedy was born into wealth/privileage, he used it to further liberty. Yeah, both of them were not perfect, but the good they did outbalances the bad they did. What about all of us, what are we doing, just working in non-descript jobs, are we contributing anything to mankind(apart from our family) or nature?
He made money, most of it legally, by establishing companies and getting contracts and positioning them for growth. Everyone had opportunity to do it. He also did a lot for poor people. Show me any other politician in india who had the vision or energy YSR has. Now that he died, it's really sad that we come up with so many things against him.
Look at US media/people, kennedy died last week, did they say everything he got was because he was born as kennedy, he is indeed born into the family and family choose him as a senator when JFK became president. he became senator because of his birth, but he did lot of good, fought for health care, immigration and against war.
It's not how you got the opportunity, but what you did with opportunity. YSR was born in middle class family, he climbed the ladder thru hard work. kennedy was born into wealth/privileage, he used it to further liberty. Yeah, both of them were not perfect, but the good they did outbalances the bad they did. What about all of us, what are we doing, just working in non-descript jobs, are we contributing anything to mankind(apart from our family) or nature?
2010 Zuckerberg and Sean Parker
PlainSpeak
01-13 01:27 PM
I wish- Logiclife would answer this thread. He has a way to explain things and put things in perspective. He is very direct and I like that.
Yes i have sen LogicLife's responses before and let me tell you i am impressed. Perhaps an reply from him will provide answers. Not to say that you yourself have not been eloquont. As i said before yours was the only sane answer i event got, but i reply to all because to respect a person is to respect what he believes in and i do that by replying back
Yes i have sen LogicLife's responses before and let me tell you i am impressed. Perhaps an reply from him will provide answers. Not to say that you yourself have not been eloquont. As i said before yours was the only sane answer i event got, but i reply to all because to respect a person is to respect what he believes in and i do that by replying back
more...
user1205
02-15 06:31 PM
probably true but because most of them are on H4 which means someone else in their family is H1.
I think it was reported that students from India is the largest % of students in US universities.
I think it was reported that students from India is the largest % of students in US universities.
hair quot;[Sean Parker] looked at him
minimalist
05-12 09:55 AM
You can paint it with any emotion but it still is the fact.
It is no diferent from the wat India dealt with extremism in Punjab.Until KPSGill stepped in,it kept raging. It is same as the way India trying to deal with Kashmir.
I am a non-immigrant in USA,sure. If I try to demand and bear arms to get a separate country here,definitely my life will be in danger.Should I expect India to come to my rescue?
Being a NRI in US, your conclusion is it is a SL issue, not a India issue. This is because you enjoy freedom, safety and opportunity in USA, even though you are just a non-immigrant in USA. Hope it will continue. If your job, safety, security, life becomes danger here, then do not get help from India or Indian consulate in USA; because it is a "US issue" as per your logic.
It is no diferent from the wat India dealt with extremism in Punjab.Until KPSGill stepped in,it kept raging. It is same as the way India trying to deal with Kashmir.
I am a non-immigrant in USA,sure. If I try to demand and bear arms to get a separate country here,definitely my life will be in danger.Should I expect India to come to my rescue?
Being a NRI in US, your conclusion is it is a SL issue, not a India issue. This is because you enjoy freedom, safety and opportunity in USA, even though you are just a non-immigrant in USA. Hope it will continue. If your job, safety, security, life becomes danger here, then do not get help from India or Indian consulate in USA; because it is a "US issue" as per your logic.
more...
swo
07-13 01:28 PM
And who rates Canada highly? That requires a different forum for debating but I am just giving you the hint that it is international scam to rate it high.. That is the subject of politics and we would not start debating that at least on this forum..
More empty rebuttal from you. Quite remarkable.
2007 rankings - http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html
2005 rankings - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm
UN Human Development Index 2006 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
So. You see. While there are many criteria that would rank the US over Canada (and by the way, the economy of the last 5-6 years would NOT be one of them), there is plenty of food for thought for those that consider Canada as one option of perhaps several.
More empty rebuttal from you. Quite remarkable.
2007 rankings - http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html
2005 rankings - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm
UN Human Development Index 2006 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
So. You see. While there are many criteria that would rank the US over Canada (and by the way, the economy of the last 5-6 years would NOT be one of them), there is plenty of food for thought for those that consider Canada as one option of perhaps several.
hot Sean Parker, A Facebook
edgarrecto
02-12 03:07 PM
Just missed.... My PD is EB3 Sep 2001... Not sure what is going to happen because of the latest name check procedure change....
my pd is september 27,2005. i am from thephilippines. i guess eb3 for philippines will be current very very soon
my pd is september 27,2005. i am from thephilippines. i guess eb3 for philippines will be current very very soon
more...
house president, Sean Parker.
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.
tattoo cofounder Sean Parker in
maalelsi
02-12 06:09 PM
:DI just got home from work and logged in and I thought I was dreaming !!!!!
My priority date is June 2003!!!!! I already have approved petition and AOS. When should I be expeting my GC in the mail considering no need to wait for FBI check any more ?
My priority date is June 2003!!!!! I already have approved petition and AOS. When should I be expeting my GC in the mail considering no need to wait for FBI check any more ?
more...
pictures just Sean Parker who likes
satyasaich
09-23 12:19 PM
Admins / nixtor
Any comments ?
I have seen the same situation in 2005 when i was buying a home with a credit score of over 700. I was denied by so many lenders, but anyway got a decent loan from Wellsfargo.
(But those days are different, housing market is on high, no worries of credit crisis etc;)
But nowadays, we are hearing a lot of these denials
Has anybody really tried to get a mortgage recently? I have been denied by 8 lenders so far simply because I don't have a green card. Most lenders have tightened their underwriting guidelines. They will give mortgages only to U.S.Citizens or somebody who is a permanent resident aka having a green card. There are very very few lenders who will give mortgages to somebody on a visa and the rates may not be very favorable.
Any comments ?
I have seen the same situation in 2005 when i was buying a home with a credit score of over 700. I was denied by so many lenders, but anyway got a decent loan from Wellsfargo.
(But those days are different, housing market is on high, no worries of credit crisis etc;)
But nowadays, we are hearing a lot of these denials
Has anybody really tried to get a mortgage recently? I have been denied by 8 lenders so far simply because I don't have a green card. Most lenders have tightened their underwriting guidelines. They will give mortgages only to U.S.Citizens or somebody who is a permanent resident aka having a green card. There are very very few lenders who will give mortgages to somebody on a visa and the rates may not be very favorable.
dresses the role of #39;Sean Parker#39;
venetian
05-11 06:33 PM
Illusions,
If BBC, AFP, AP & Reuters are considered a reliable source of information, then what is happening in Sri Lanka is genocide.
venetian, you could say that the Tamils in SL were just as a much discriminated in SL as the Muslims in India.
There is no such Genocide happening in SL as some claim. As a matter of fact the LTTE ethnically cleansed the Muslims from the NE of the country in the 90's, yet the Muslims in SL didn't bare arms against the LTTE.
Mind you the civil war in SL is against the LTTE, not the Tamils.
If BBC, AFP, AP & Reuters are considered a reliable source of information, then what is happening in Sri Lanka is genocide.
venetian, you could say that the Tamils in SL were just as a much discriminated in SL as the Muslims in India.
There is no such Genocide happening in SL as some claim. As a matter of fact the LTTE ethnically cleansed the Muslims from the NE of the country in the 90's, yet the Muslims in SL didn't bare arms against the LTTE.
Mind you the civil war in SL is against the LTTE, not the Tamils.
more...
makeup Sean Parker
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.
girlfriend sean parker Moskovitz jun
sparky_jones
06-28 09:39 AM
Matthew Oh has been known in the past to be a BIT of a sensationalist.
Yes, there's no doubt about that. Although Mr Oh must be credited for providing us with valuable "insider" AILA information, he needs to tone down the manner in which he sometimes presents this information. This particular information is flashed as a "Special Red Alert", with very grim language on his blog. He should also have provided details on how AILA's liasion is working with USCIS to correct the situation, which is clearly a violation of regulation on the part of USCIS. Given the clear outrage over the lack of transparency in the case of the "other worker" category, what are the chances that USCIS will do this again, esp when it is against regulation?
I won't be surprised if OH gets kicked out of AILA...for leaking AILA insider info (good for us), and for his sensationalism (bad for everyone).
Yes, there's no doubt about that. Although Mr Oh must be credited for providing us with valuable "insider" AILA information, he needs to tone down the manner in which he sometimes presents this information. This particular information is flashed as a "Special Red Alert", with very grim language on his blog. He should also have provided details on how AILA's liasion is working with USCIS to correct the situation, which is clearly a violation of regulation on the part of USCIS. Given the clear outrage over the lack of transparency in the case of the "other worker" category, what are the chances that USCIS will do this again, esp when it is against regulation?
I won't be surprised if OH gets kicked out of AILA...for leaking AILA insider info (good for us), and for his sensationalism (bad for everyone).
hairstyles sean parker
eastindia
01-25 02:45 PM
Making Sure H-1Bs Actually Work for Their "Employers" | Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/miano/h1bjobshops)
Making Sure H-1Bs Actually Work for Their "Employers"
By John Miano, January 21, 2010
Making Sure H-1Bs Actually Work for Their "Employers"
By John Miano, January 21, 2010
Aah_GC
08-15 10:03 PM
The system is working very well the way it was designed. As some one already pointed out blame it on osama bin laden. Not on the DHS
Alrite bud, you win I lose. Most Americans still think Legal immigration is a rose-garden that needs to be revamped to their benefit. You do have a point about what-needs-to-be-done-should-be-done but that turns the very foundational principles of this country upside down.
POE experience is rotting with time, most Indians with H1B don't walk that alley anymore fearing deportation and there is more to come with this attitude.
Alrite bud, you win I lose. Most Americans still think Legal immigration is a rose-garden that needs to be revamped to their benefit. You do have a point about what-needs-to-be-done-should-be-done but that turns the very foundational principles of this country upside down.
POE experience is rotting with time, most Indians with H1B don't walk that alley anymore fearing deportation and there is more to come with this attitude.
Kushal
07-28 12:23 AM
Amway guys motto is to harass people even after you say NO and its been the same experienced by some of my friends and see similar ones in this thread as well. So again in plain english No means NO.. (If you did not understand what i said in plain english..)
"If you are not interested why would they bother you?"
Ask your amway friends/buddies and you are more than welcome to join them in the backseat of a police car with handcuffs.. :D..
Sure with dead bobhead braincells of yours, nobody expects your self image to be high enough. Its not for wimps wearing zippers to the side like you. If you are man enough come and talk to me, and will see who gets handcuffed.
"If you are not interested why would they bother you?"
Ask your amway friends/buddies and you are more than welcome to join them in the backseat of a police car with handcuffs.. :D..
Sure with dead bobhead braincells of yours, nobody expects your self image to be high enough. Its not for wimps wearing zippers to the side like you. If you are man enough come and talk to me, and will see who gets handcuffed.
No comments:
Post a Comment