trueguy
03-06 01:48 PM
Countdown started :) Hoping for April bulletin either today or on monday.
wallpaper Rainbow Island Wallpaper
ramus
07-18 03:24 PM
Great.. Thank you.. Please ask your neighbours to join IV i they have not yet.
Thanks for all your efforts.
Made a contribution of $100
Confirmation Number: 1LX38419RG209364L.
Thanks for all your efforts.
Made a contribution of $100
Confirmation Number: 1LX38419RG209364L.
Libra
09-14 11:48 AM
bump
2011 lost island wallpapers
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
more...
I_need_GC
03-25 02:27 PM
I am in a bind now, appreciate any advice,
I am planning on using my EAD to switch to another job in a couple of months. Meanwhile I have booked tickets for May 26th to send my son to India for the summer. He has H4 stamped in his passport valid till 2010.
My question is
**Can my son come back on H4 even though I use my EAD to change jobs ?
**Does he need to have advance parole ? Even if I apply for AP tomorrow, chances are very slim that he will get it before he leaves on May 26th.
Thanks in Advance
If you switch Jobs, and you don't have your H1B transfered to the new employer this means your H1B is not valid. No your son can not entry the country on H4 he must use AP. But if you continue to work full time on H1B and work part time on EAD with another employer then he can come on H4.
I am planning on using my EAD to switch to another job in a couple of months. Meanwhile I have booked tickets for May 26th to send my son to India for the summer. He has H4 stamped in his passport valid till 2010.
My question is
**Can my son come back on H4 even though I use my EAD to change jobs ?
**Does he need to have advance parole ? Even if I apply for AP tomorrow, chances are very slim that he will get it before he leaves on May 26th.
Thanks in Advance
If you switch Jobs, and you don't have your H1B transfered to the new employer this means your H1B is not valid. No your son can not entry the country on H4 he must use AP. But if you continue to work full time on H1B and work part time on EAD with another employer then he can come on H4.
Green.Tech
05-23 03:19 PM
Keep the contributions coming guys! These bills are a golden opportunity for us...We don't want IV to stop short of funds on its efforts, do we?
more...
chanduv23
07-06 12:33 PM
Please update your profiles on IV if you have not done so - thanks
2010 island 1024x600 wallpapers
9years
10-21 02:30 PM
I am not sure how porting works. I heard in some cases they will be ported automatically and in some cases we (attorney) have to request for porting. I will talk to my attorney and post the information here as I get it.
Thank you and best of luck every one.
Thank you and best of luck every one.
more...
gsc999
07-21 03:39 PM
Look at this post. The thoughts are compelling. Is this something that we should get some clarifications on?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10859
--
This is what trolls have done in the past. When ever we have had a successful event. Trolls from anti-immigration groups, demand disclosure of financial statements and raise doubts on IV leadership. Don't get drawn into this. Lets keep doing what we are.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10859
--
This is what trolls have done in the past. When ever we have had a successful event. Trolls from anti-immigration groups, demand disclosure of financial statements and raise doubts on IV leadership. Don't get drawn into this. Lets keep doing what we are.
hair island wallpaper.
sunny1000
04-30 04:18 PM
Yahi hai Umrika ke USCIS ke officer ka Tashan!
and in English that means what?
and in English that means what?
more...
sukhwinderd
04-01 08:15 AM
FL stopped issuing DLs if you are on AOS (ie 485 pending) only with no backup H1/H4.
my wife got her DL extended till AP validity even though her I-94 has expired. she entered as parolee.
this is just FYI.
my wife got her DL extended till AP validity even though her I-94 has expired. she entered as parolee.
this is just FYI.
hot Catalina Island Wallpapers
arunmohan
10-21 06:41 PM
We are referring the Michael Yates's memo in the letter but why we not referring the Donald Neufeld's Memo?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/AC21_30May08.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/AC21_30May08.pdf
more...
house Sandy Island, Anguilla
pappu
08-12 11:36 AM
Why is the senator backtracking from "chop shop" comment ? Here is why
Visa row: US keen not to hurt ties with India before Obama visit - US - World - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Visa-row-US-keen-not-to-hurt-ties-with-India-before-Obama-visit/articleshow/6298482.cms)
He has already been able to pass the law. Now whether he calls them chopshop or backtracks, or praises them.......it does not do anything. This will soon be a law.
Visa row: US keen not to hurt ties with India before Obama visit - US - World - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Visa-row-US-keen-not-to-hurt-ties-with-India-before-Obama-visit/articleshow/6298482.cms)
He has already been able to pass the law. Now whether he calls them chopshop or backtracks, or praises them.......it does not do anything. This will soon be a law.
tattoo Catalina Island Wallpapers
kumar4j2ee
09-17 02:02 PM
Order Details - Sep 17, 2007 1:33 PM EDT
Google Order #371403364547278
Google Order #371403364547278
more...
pictures tropical island wallpaper.
indyanguy
09-25 08:15 PM
This is an excellent thread. It's something I've been looking for for a long time. I am still not clear about using AC21. Here's my situation.
July 2nd filer. Received EAD for me (primary) and my spouse. Waiting for I140 approval. I understand it's risky to invoke AC21 before I140 approval. After I get it approved, here's what I intend to do.
1. Inc a business in my spouse's name.
2. Invoke AC21 and join my spouse's company as a "Software Engineer" (my position in LCA)
If I do this, during I485 adjudication, all I need is an offer letter from my spouse company saying that I am working as a Software Engineer right?
Also, does USCIS care during I485 adjudication whether I got paid continously while employed with my spouse's company?
If for any reason, I decide to quit my spouse's company before I485 adjudication and move to a different company, Will I be able to do this?
July 2nd filer. Received EAD for me (primary) and my spouse. Waiting for I140 approval. I understand it's risky to invoke AC21 before I140 approval. After I get it approved, here's what I intend to do.
1. Inc a business in my spouse's name.
2. Invoke AC21 and join my spouse's company as a "Software Engineer" (my position in LCA)
If I do this, during I485 adjudication, all I need is an offer letter from my spouse company saying that I am working as a Software Engineer right?
Also, does USCIS care during I485 adjudication whether I got paid continously while employed with my spouse's company?
If for any reason, I decide to quit my spouse's company before I485 adjudication and move to a different company, Will I be able to do this?
dresses 2005 The Island wallpaper
Dhundhun
03-18 01:55 PM
Can you show us the source of your information? It is very clearly written on the IRS website that if Married and filing jointly, both need to have SSN. If one spouse has ITIN, you will not get ANY rebate.
Here it is:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179211,00.html
I can feel my H1B friends being hurt due to such discrimination.
I did not ask for my wife's EAD, while filing AOS, because she don't want to work. IRS is forcing us (indirectly) to take EAD, so that SSA will provide SSN and then based on SSN, IRS will give stimulus benefit.
Here it is:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179211,00.html
I can feel my H1B friends being hurt due to such discrimination.
I did not ask for my wife's EAD, while filing AOS, because she don't want to work. IRS is forcing us (indirectly) to take EAD, so that SSA will provide SSN and then based on SSN, IRS will give stimulus benefit.
more...
makeup beaches wallpaper
Libra
09-12 10:07 AM
thank you satya, please post it here.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13158&page=18
Hi Milind123,
I just contributed $100, here are my order details :
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 09:12 GMT-04:00
Google Order #131954606924512
Thanks
Satya Chowdary
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13158&page=18
Hi Milind123,
I just contributed $100, here are my order details :
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 09:12 GMT-04:00
Google Order #131954606924512
Thanks
Satya Chowdary
girlfriend is a resized wallpaper,
royus77
07-06 07:05 PM
They can potentially avoid a law suit by making the revised July VB ( version 2) released today ?Any thoughts
hairstyles desktop wallpaper islands
gondalguru
07-24 11:19 AM
I don't think what u wrote is possible.
what is yoru priority date?
Do u have an older PD or Is it Sept 2006 EB-3 india then how can u file for I-485 in June 2007 when your PD was not current??
I think I have been very lucky so far. I don't think USCIS processes based on anything concrete, I think it's a little random. Or maybe I am just lucky.
I applied for PERM in Sep 2006 - EB3 - India.
I got approved for PERM in Mar 2007.
I applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in Jun 2007.
I-140 got approved July 20, 2007 and on July 23, 2007 I received all 4 receipts for I-140, I-485, EAD and AP. So my approval came before my receipt. I live in California so everything went to Nebraksa.
Lawyers emailed saying they also received the EAD card yesterday July 23, 2007.
Now I have to wait for only AP and Adjustment. And I still have 5 years left on my H1-B (2 years on this visa and then another extension).
So I say, anything is possible. I wake up every morning and pray to USCIS because they made my life better :) :) :)
what is yoru priority date?
Do u have an older PD or Is it Sept 2006 EB-3 india then how can u file for I-485 in June 2007 when your PD was not current??
I think I have been very lucky so far. I don't think USCIS processes based on anything concrete, I think it's a little random. Or maybe I am just lucky.
I applied for PERM in Sep 2006 - EB3 - India.
I got approved for PERM in Mar 2007.
I applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in Jun 2007.
I-140 got approved July 20, 2007 and on July 23, 2007 I received all 4 receipts for I-140, I-485, EAD and AP. So my approval came before my receipt. I live in California so everything went to Nebraksa.
Lawyers emailed saying they also received the EAD card yesterday July 23, 2007.
Now I have to wait for only AP and Adjustment. And I still have 5 years left on my H1-B (2 years on this visa and then another extension).
So I say, anything is possible. I wake up every morning and pray to USCIS because they made my life better :) :) :)
NKR
06-25 12:56 PM
Fully agree with you.
A thought comes to mind on reading your post.
Is that what the average Amrican wants us to do? Do they want us immigrants to be kept away from participating in innovation? Do they want us to keep working mundane jobs? Do they want us to lag behind them?
This is just a speculation no hard proofs but only a thought.
Isn�t this what the American companies want?. They get qualified people who keep doing the same job for less and churning millions for the companies. Also, the big companies are fighting to get H1s quota increased, they do not care about whether these people get GCs are not, being in H1 for long serves them right.
Isn�t this what many people here want?. They can boss over us for many years even if you are more qualified then them since you cannot change your profile.
Isn�t this what the government want?. American companies are making money, many people are happy. Then why change the situation?.
How much percent of the immigrants who get GC go on to become innovators and start their own company?. I would say less than 10%, that also could be a far fetched figure.
America gains more than it loses.
A thought comes to mind on reading your post.
Is that what the average Amrican wants us to do? Do they want us immigrants to be kept away from participating in innovation? Do they want us to keep working mundane jobs? Do they want us to lag behind them?
This is just a speculation no hard proofs but only a thought.
Isn�t this what the American companies want?. They get qualified people who keep doing the same job for less and churning millions for the companies. Also, the big companies are fighting to get H1s quota increased, they do not care about whether these people get GCs are not, being in H1 for long serves them right.
Isn�t this what many people here want?. They can boss over us for many years even if you are more qualified then them since you cannot change your profile.
Isn�t this what the government want?. American companies are making money, many people are happy. Then why change the situation?.
How much percent of the immigrants who get GC go on to become innovators and start their own company?. I would say less than 10%, that also could be a far fetched figure.
America gains more than it loses.
chanduv23
06-01 03:37 PM
AILA (http://www.aila.org/) has an analysis of the immigration bill in an article "Top 5 Concerns Regarding Employment-Based Immigration in S. 1348":
there is a disturbing section in there:
Gaps in Green Card Availability � Immigrant visa petitions filed after May 15, 2007 on the basis of the current employment-based preference system will be rejected. � During the period between May 15, 2007 and the date the new merit based system is up and running (likely October 1, 2008), no new employment-based green card applications can be filed.
Any validity to this claim ?
If so, Does this mean that all I-485 that can be filled with the latest jump in priority date will be voided ?
Is this valid/legal ?
Maybe for new L/C filings .. can anyone look at this interpretation??
there is a disturbing section in there:
Gaps in Green Card Availability � Immigrant visa petitions filed after May 15, 2007 on the basis of the current employment-based preference system will be rejected. � During the period between May 15, 2007 and the date the new merit based system is up and running (likely October 1, 2008), no new employment-based green card applications can be filed.
Any validity to this claim ?
If so, Does this mean that all I-485 that can be filled with the latest jump in priority date will be voided ?
Is this valid/legal ?
Maybe for new L/C filings .. can anyone look at this interpretation??
No comments:
Post a Comment