Caliber
03-12 08:56 AM
To understand what IV has done, all you have to do is, open your eyes
wallpaper de Gael García Bernal
sat0207
04-27 09:23 AM
Immigration Security Checks
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
mariner5555
03-06 06:48 AM
Many of them during the letters campaign, and most are ready to buy a home within a year of getting their green cards!
On ther other hand I personally know a very highly educated guy (IITBombay, MS then PhD in Electrical Eng- with a specialization in wireless tech) who got his EB GC 2-3 years too late... by that time the tech boom was over but the housing boom had already begun... so he decided to wait a few more years. Now he feels bad about the whole thing, and wonders if he should have bought a home when he was on H1B-- even if it would be frought with risk! That way, he would have been a millionaire today-- just like his friends who got their GCs and bought homes well in time.
8 years later, the history is repeating itself.
500,000+ people are patiently waiting in the EB GC queue... and chances are they will helplessly watch as home prices hit the bottom, and then rebound a few years later.
Some of them might decide to take the plunge and buy a home to take advantage of the low prices. However, many of them may be simply denied this chance becasuse their future is tied to a plastic card that has to be renewed every year!
Singhsa, sorry cannot help you right now with the media... maybe you can try getting help from the IV-media team?
personally I know many friends who did not buy house and are happy that they didnt (as it gave them flexibility). one of them is IITian who chose not to apply for a green card and he went back (and is at a higher post in mumbai).also I know many friends who bought house and are repenting because they brought it at height of bubble - they feel they should have waited for a longer time as they could have brought house in a better location (now they are staying 50 miles away from airport and 25 miles away from job in tough commute) - so personal experiences dont mean much.
BTW --housing is not the best way to become rich (unless you were successfully buying and selling houses (flipping) during the golden boom days - i.e 2003 - 2007) ..those days are gone and probably we wont see that again in our lifetime.
there are many articles nowadays which give you an example of the above ..also prices maybe lower ..but it will go down more ..and those who buy should think of their house as a place to stay(and if they really need the large space) ..not necessarily an investment.
On ther other hand I personally know a very highly educated guy (IITBombay, MS then PhD in Electrical Eng- with a specialization in wireless tech) who got his EB GC 2-3 years too late... by that time the tech boom was over but the housing boom had already begun... so he decided to wait a few more years. Now he feels bad about the whole thing, and wonders if he should have bought a home when he was on H1B-- even if it would be frought with risk! That way, he would have been a millionaire today-- just like his friends who got their GCs and bought homes well in time.
8 years later, the history is repeating itself.
500,000+ people are patiently waiting in the EB GC queue... and chances are they will helplessly watch as home prices hit the bottom, and then rebound a few years later.
Some of them might decide to take the plunge and buy a home to take advantage of the low prices. However, many of them may be simply denied this chance becasuse their future is tied to a plastic card that has to be renewed every year!
Singhsa, sorry cannot help you right now with the media... maybe you can try getting help from the IV-media team?
personally I know many friends who did not buy house and are happy that they didnt (as it gave them flexibility). one of them is IITian who chose not to apply for a green card and he went back (and is at a higher post in mumbai).also I know many friends who bought house and are repenting because they brought it at height of bubble - they feel they should have waited for a longer time as they could have brought house in a better location (now they are staying 50 miles away from airport and 25 miles away from job in tough commute) - so personal experiences dont mean much.
BTW --housing is not the best way to become rich (unless you were successfully buying and selling houses (flipping) during the golden boom days - i.e 2003 - 2007) ..those days are gone and probably we wont see that again in our lifetime.
there are many articles nowadays which give you an example of the above ..also prices maybe lower ..but it will go down more ..and those who buy should think of their house as a place to stay(and if they really need the large space) ..not necessarily an investment.
2011 Gael García Bernal (en la
pappu
05-08 11:58 PM
coopheal,
I think it is a good idea, just contributed, thanks!
insbaby we are unable to verify your contribution. Could you send us your transaction details, IV handle and the email used to contribute. We can check and get back to you if there was an error.
I think it is a good idea, just contributed, thanks!
insbaby we are unable to verify your contribution. Could you send us your transaction details, IV handle and the email used to contribute. We can check and get back to you if there was an error.
more...
aj1234567
07-18 06:08 PM
Hi Gurus,
My PD is Dec06 EB2, do you have any guess when I will be current.
Thanks
My PD is Dec06 EB2, do you have any guess when I will be current.
Thanks
praveenuppaluri
03-11 11:20 PM
after all the hype and tensions running high among IVans....
EB2 no change and EB3 moved by 3 months - so much for spillovers..
and the article in the OP message starts as "We are pleased to announce the April 2010 cut-off dates ...." damnn.. sure they are pleased with themselves.. :mad:
EB2 no change and EB3 moved by 3 months - so much for spillovers..
and the article in the OP message starts as "We are pleased to announce the April 2010 cut-off dates ...." damnn.. sure they are pleased with themselves.. :mad:
more...
perm2gc
01-02 05:58 PM
Posted about IV on www.denverindians.com
http://denverindians.com/forum/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=9&TopicID=152&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=1
Thanks jonty_11
http://denverindians.com/forum/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=9&TopicID=152&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=1
Thanks jonty_11
2010 Amores Perros
feedfront
09-17 02:02 PM
Attorney will contact us as soon as they get letter. They are not going to respond w/o service fee.
Chillax, it's Friday. We'll definitely get it by next week.
Chillax, it's Friday. We'll definitely get it by next week.
more...
snathan
07-28 08:38 PM
Guys,
Hope this thread will be useful for somebody who is looking for american company for green card processing. They wont get into the trap. So I am giving out the information from the known source(friends).
Company1: Deloitte
Company2: Chase
These two companies promised doing green card cards,they filed h1s, but did not file green card.Whatever reason (bad economy) may be, they did not sponsor green cards for those they promised to do. So be careful. It is not gaurantee.
Also, you can list the companies you know whoever promised, but did not file.
A sure invitation for defamation suit. Good luck.
Hope this thread will be useful for somebody who is looking for american company for green card processing. They wont get into the trap. So I am giving out the information from the known source(friends).
Company1: Deloitte
Company2: Chase
These two companies promised doing green card cards,they filed h1s, but did not file green card.Whatever reason (bad economy) may be, they did not sponsor green cards for those they promised to do. So be careful. It is not gaurantee.
Also, you can list the companies you know whoever promised, but did not file.
A sure invitation for defamation suit. Good luck.
hair INTERSTITIAL AMORES PERROS PARA CINELATINO GAEL GARCIA BERNAL Y VANESSA
FucTheGC
06-06 10:56 PM
Mine is similar to you case, PD- Jan 23 2004, RD July 23 2007, ND Aug 24 2008
Do feel they go by processing times striclty?
If the case is straight forward they go by processing times and receipt date.
Do feel they go by processing times striclty?
If the case is straight forward they go by processing times and receipt date.
more...
gc28262
04-08 10:29 AM
Pending clearance on rumors, if POE called employer, it is likely that employer(s) may answer about US Citzen hiring to yes, but it is very "generic". The "generic" information my be mis using by POE either intentional or unintentional . It is better off giving heads up to company HR department about these enquiries (if they are not rumors) and brainstrom them about procedure and time lines to hire US citizen and impact on business if non immigration is not available immediately. Otherwise, employer may say yes to hire US citizen "in general".
If HR says YES to IO's question, HR would be contradicting himself.
Irrespective of whether these are rumors, H1B traveler should always make a note of IO' identification. It is better to ask IO for his identity once he gets into "job protection" mode. Later on candidate can lodge a complaint against IO if needed.
Protecting US job is none of IO's business.
If HR says YES to IO's question, HR would be contradicting himself.
Irrespective of whether these are rumors, H1B traveler should always make a note of IO' identification. It is better to ask IO for his identity once he gets into "job protection" mode. Later on candidate can lodge a complaint against IO if needed.
Protecting US job is none of IO's business.
hot GAEL GARCIA BERNAL AND DIEGO
GCard_Dream
12-13 11:46 AM
I should have known this. The procedure is right on the IV home page. Does anyone know when the next conference call is?
How to submit your questions:
Please read the disclaimer below before submitting your questions via email.Please provide us with the following information, preferably in the following format, and keep it consise and crisp:
Email with Subject Line saying : Seeking Legal Opinion.
Email Address: legal_advise@immigrationvoice.org
Your Info: Please mention your first Name, City and State, so that we can use it to announce your question in the call. That way, your question would be distinguished from similar sounding questions.
Your Country of Citizenship: If your spouse is from a country other than yours, please specify both your countries of citizenship
Your Questions: Provide some clear background. Avoid questions with long and complicated case-specific situations that are like "Can I do X? If yes then is option A or option B better? If option A then can I file this? IF option B then can I file this? If B fails then can I refile A?". Such flow-chart and if-then-else type questions would be taken up only if time is left and attorney is comfortable in answering questions with limited information of your situation.
How to submit your questions:
Please read the disclaimer below before submitting your questions via email.Please provide us with the following information, preferably in the following format, and keep it consise and crisp:
Email with Subject Line saying : Seeking Legal Opinion.
Email Address: legal_advise@immigrationvoice.org
Your Info: Please mention your first Name, City and State, so that we can use it to announce your question in the call. That way, your question would be distinguished from similar sounding questions.
Your Country of Citizenship: If your spouse is from a country other than yours, please specify both your countries of citizenship
Your Questions: Provide some clear background. Avoid questions with long and complicated case-specific situations that are like "Can I do X? If yes then is option A or option B better? If option A then can I file this? IF option B then can I file this? If B fails then can I refile A?". Such flow-chart and if-then-else type questions would be taken up only if time is left and attorney is comfortable in answering questions with limited information of your situation.
more...
house Gael García Bernal viste John
grinch
03-02 06:24 PM
Noooooooooooooooooo!!! gah thats two ppl who dropped out... aw
tattoo Gael García Bernal (whom I
wizard20740
07-09 07:25 PM
A FBI name check does not seem to be a mandatory requirement for a GC. I think it maybe part of a "National Security Background Check" but does not seem to be a mandatory one.
Also Please see link below, which seems to indicate that precedents exist for issuing Citizenship to people without completion of background checks. These checks have to be completed within 120 days of citizenship interview, and it seems that in nearly 20% cases, people have been granted citizenship without completion of background checks because the 120 day timeline expired.
http://immigration.about.com/b/a/256020.htm
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
Also Please see link below, which seems to indicate that precedents exist for issuing Citizenship to people without completion of background checks. These checks have to be completed within 120 days of citizenship interview, and it seems that in nearly 20% cases, people have been granted citizenship without completion of background checks because the 120 day timeline expired.
http://immigration.about.com/b/a/256020.htm
Would you mind quoting the actual law then?
Does every I-485 need FBI approval or just background check? How do you know that it needs FBI Name Check for all cases. Quote the law please.
more...
pictures Amores Perros (Gael Garcia
like_watching_paint_dry
05-27 05:22 PM
I-485 application instructions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-485instr.pdf) ask you to make photocopies of your passport.
dresses it had Gael Garcia Bernal.
tikka
06-10 09:41 PM
Hi
Since have some down time.. maybe we can try and revive local chapters?
You folks - Jersey was quite active, maybe we can all work together.
Please PM me
thank you
Since have some down time.. maybe we can try and revive local chapters?
You folks - Jersey was quite active, maybe we can all work together.
Please PM me
thank you
more...
makeup Penelope Cruz and Gael Garcia
nandakumar
10-22 05:37 PM
I faxed the FOIA request.
girlfriend Gael García le presta su voz a
srkamath
07-20 01:26 PM
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
delax,
There is a mistake in your numbers, thousands of cases applied for in 2005 were approved in 2006.
If you look at the 2006 PERM Data Sheet, there are 7290 Approved, India cases with receipt dates in the year 2005.
I'm assuming PD = PERM Receipt Date (correct me if i'm wrong)
Similarly for 2006 in the 2007 tables.
Therefore there are ~ 8700 - EB1, EB2, EB3 cases in 2005 and not 1350.
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
delax,
There is a mistake in your numbers, thousands of cases applied for in 2005 were approved in 2006.
If you look at the 2006 PERM Data Sheet, there are 7290 Approved, India cases with receipt dates in the year 2005.
I'm assuming PD = PERM Receipt Date (correct me if i'm wrong)
Similarly for 2006 in the 2007 tables.
Therefore there are ~ 8700 - EB1, EB2, EB3 cases in 2005 and not 1350.
hairstyles amores perros.
nandakumar
12-27 06:07 PM
There are couple of postings in Murthy.com
Please participate so that others can view and potentially could become members of IV
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2704080912&m=7141062241
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2994050912&m=5171092241
Please participate so that others can view and potentially could become members of IV
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2704080912&m=7141062241
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2994050912&m=5171092241
whiteStallion
09-10 04:48 PM
Talking about horses and your user id WhiteStallion is surreal. Dude looks like they are after all discussing a bill right up your alley :D
No offence. Just Kidding!!
I know! No offence taken!
I wish I could benefit from these lousy discussions(in the senate) about horses or legal immigrants in some way... Seems its now happening today !
No offence. Just Kidding!!
I know! No offence taken!
I wish I could benefit from these lousy discussions(in the senate) about horses or legal immigrants in some way... Seems its now happening today !
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 12:50 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?