Berkeleybee
04-08 02:56 PM
Thanks for the effort. Obviously it is not their interest to release the data, that's why we need to figure out a way to force them to discose such data. I think it's possible to get a court order to request such data.
It takes years and months to get a request fulfilled under FOIA. In this administration, run of the mill govt agencies have been given even more latitude in fulfilling FOIA requests -- forget about the DOS and its response to FOIA requests. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear -- even other agencies within the government who don't need FOIA are unable to make this happen. Do see the magnitude of the problem?
The only way to break the logjam is through political pressure.
Again, I'd say, please don't assume the IV people who have been working on these issues are naive or lack information. ;-)
It takes years and months to get a request fulfilled under FOIA. In this administration, run of the mill govt agencies have been given even more latitude in fulfilling FOIA requests -- forget about the DOS and its response to FOIA requests. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear -- even other agencies within the government who don't need FOIA are unable to make this happen. Do see the magnitude of the problem?
The only way to break the logjam is through political pressure.
Again, I'd say, please don't assume the IV people who have been working on these issues are naive or lack information. ;-)
wallpaper cool desktop backgrounds free.
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
wanaparthy
03-25 07:58 PM
Iam serious and i put it that i felt.
But later realized that this is not the right place!
Thanks
But later realized that this is not the right place!
Thanks
2011 A cool piece of work presented
minimalist
08-10 11:40 AM
Is it the employer's responsibility to consider in which Green Card Category the employee will fall in future before puts ad.?
Bachelor degree would be enough to do the job if EB3 has a PD around 2005/2006/Current.
Just because the PD is before 2005, doesn't mean the job needs masters degree. The job responsibilities will remain the same. The person doing the job would have acquired the necessary experience to carry out a job that falls in EB2.
Also, not everybody qualified for EB2 may be able to find a job that is in EB2. That's a different story .
----
EB3I - May 2006
Contributed 100$
Bachelor degree would be enough to do the job if EB3 has a PD around 2005/2006/Current.
Just because the PD is before 2005, doesn't mean the job needs masters degree. The job responsibilities will remain the same. The person doing the job would have acquired the necessary experience to carry out a job that falls in EB2.
Also, not everybody qualified for EB2 may be able to find a job that is in EB2. That's a different story .
----
EB3I - May 2006
Contributed 100$
more...
grupak
09-09 11:38 AM
Numbersusa claims it is being voted tomorrow. They are making calls against it.
Let us all call for it, and push the bill forward.
Pick up the phone. Will take just 20 mins of your time.
Let us all call for it, and push the bill forward.
Pick up the phone. Will take just 20 mins of your time.
p_kumar
08-28 04:02 PM
you should use another attorney. How can you go to your employer's attonery(even though he represents you) and ask about taking another job?. Its same as asking your employer.:eek:
more...
reddy_h
08-20 09:57 PM
just ignore H-1. you need not worry as you filed AOS. you need the H-1 approval only if you want to keep maintaining H-1 status by filing H-1 transfer with your new employer otherwise you can just ignore the H-1 you already filed. if you still want to revoke the H-1 petition, only your employer can do it as it is your company's petition.
2010 Cool Desktop Backgrounds
sw33t
11-07 07:54 PM
95 and counting
more...
karthic
12-18 03:53 PM
Hi All,
I am currently working for a University in cap-exempt H1B (company A). I got a job offer from a cap-subjected company (company B). I am aware that the H1B which i have is non-transferable and i have to apply for new H1B petition to work for company.
Since the cap numbers are still available, applying for new petition is not a problem. I was in an idea of asking my new employer (company B) to apply for new H1B petition (premium processing) while working with Company A but i came to know the following from USCIS official document that i have to stop working for the current employer before submitting the company B H1B petition. I thought I can work for the cap-exempt company A until the company B H1B is approved. Have anyone experienced it? if so when should i stop working for my current cap-exempt employer?...can i work till the LCA is approved..?
Below is the paragraph from USCIS Memo
"If the H-1B alien beneficiary has not �ceased� to be employed in a cap-Exempt position, then he or she will not be counted towards the cap.
If the H-1B alien beneficiary has �ceased� to be employed in a cap-exempt position, then the alien will be subject to the H-1B numerical limitation, and the concurrent employment petition may not be approved unless a cap number is available to the alien beneficiary.
I am currently working for a University in cap-exempt H1B (company A). I got a job offer from a cap-subjected company (company B). I am aware that the H1B which i have is non-transferable and i have to apply for new H1B petition to work for company.
Since the cap numbers are still available, applying for new petition is not a problem. I was in an idea of asking my new employer (company B) to apply for new H1B petition (premium processing) while working with Company A but i came to know the following from USCIS official document that i have to stop working for the current employer before submitting the company B H1B petition. I thought I can work for the cap-exempt company A until the company B H1B is approved. Have anyone experienced it? if so when should i stop working for my current cap-exempt employer?...can i work till the LCA is approved..?
Below is the paragraph from USCIS Memo
"If the H-1B alien beneficiary has not �ceased� to be employed in a cap-Exempt position, then he or she will not be counted towards the cap.
If the H-1B alien beneficiary has �ceased� to be employed in a cap-exempt position, then the alien will be subject to the H-1B numerical limitation, and the concurrent employment petition may not be approved unless a cap number is available to the alien beneficiary.
hair cool desktop wallpapers.
Paisano
04-16 01:28 PM
It is WITCH HUNTING brother.
Below is the link about a case where an approved I-140 is going to be revoked because of this.
140 Revoked on April 2nd.Out of country currently.Re-Entry on AP? (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/i-140-petitions/10686-140-revoked-on-april-2nd-out-of-country-currently-re-entry-on-ap.html)
Below is the link about a case where an approved I-140 is going to be revoked because of this.
140 Revoked on April 2nd.Out of country currently.Re-Entry on AP? (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/i-140-petitions/10686-140-revoked-on-april-2nd-out-of-country-currently-re-entry-on-ap.html)
more...
rsdang
08-29 11:27 AM
Guys,
I have been going to various blogs and where anti legal immigration ideas are posted, I try to provide a fact based rebuttal...
As a start I would request all of you to do the same...
For the gifted writers here writing articles for newspapers is a great idea...
We all should do aour part and spread the awareness...
I have been going to various blogs and where anti legal immigration ideas are posted, I try to provide a fact based rebuttal...
As a start I would request all of you to do the same...
For the gifted writers here writing articles for newspapers is a great idea...
We all should do aour part and spread the awareness...
hot Download cool Desktop
JunRN
08-18 01:28 PM
Speculation is always part of one's life. We want to know our future options, that's why we speculate. Some speculations are deduction from facts and some are just inference. We cannot avoid speculating. What we can do is trying to know which speculation is nearer to the truth and which ones are not.
more...
house Space+ackgrounds+pictures
kaybeedee
11-05 12:06 PM
My wife would be travelling to India soon and the question is whether to use AP or go for a H1 visa. She has been working on H1 (but no H1 visa yet) and also has a valid AP. The 485 is pending on my name.
In my understanding if she uses AP in the reentry, her status would change to AOS (Adj of Status) and can stay until the 485 is adjudicated. But if 485 is rejected she would be out of status immediately. We have been told (by my filing attorney) that if she gets a H1 visa this she wouldn't be out of status in case of 485 rejection - she can continue to stay & work on H1.
Is the above correct ? And if 485 gets rejected while on H1 would she be out of status immediately ?
- I heard that the 485 rejection mentions an 'order' to leave the country within x number of days - I was wondering what the implications are if she is on H1 status (having reentered on valid H1 visa earlier) - Does her status still hold good and continue stay and work on H1 ?
- Also at the time of applying for H1 visa what kind of information can be or cannot be shared at the Visa Interview ? just to make sure that the H1 visa doesn't get rejected due to her pending 485
Many Thanks !!!
In my understanding if she uses AP in the reentry, her status would change to AOS (Adj of Status) and can stay until the 485 is adjudicated. But if 485 is rejected she would be out of status immediately. We have been told (by my filing attorney) that if she gets a H1 visa this she wouldn't be out of status in case of 485 rejection - she can continue to stay & work on H1.
Is the above correct ? And if 485 gets rejected while on H1 would she be out of status immediately ?
- I heard that the 485 rejection mentions an 'order' to leave the country within x number of days - I was wondering what the implications are if she is on H1 status (having reentered on valid H1 visa earlier) - Does her status still hold good and continue stay and work on H1 ?
- Also at the time of applying for H1 visa what kind of information can be or cannot be shared at the Visa Interview ? just to make sure that the H1 visa doesn't get rejected due to her pending 485
Many Thanks !!!
tattoo cool desktop backgrounds.
martinvisalaw
01-11 02:31 PM
The company should really have changed your husband to H-1B before the end of his 6th year in L-1 status. You count L-1 and H-1B time together to get a maximum of 6 years H-1B. Since he has almost used 6 years, and the cap has been reached for h-1Bs, he cannot change now. If the permanent residence (PR) process had been filed before the end of his 5th year, and he had changed to H-1B, he could get 7th+ year H-1B extensions while the PR process was ongoing. Unfortunately, there are no such extensions for L-1 holders, so that once they reach the end of their maximum stay, they must leave.
The company could file for your husband's PR while he is outside the US, and this is worth discussing.
The company could file for your husband's PR while he is outside the US, and this is worth discussing.
more...
pictures Cool desktop backgrounds
Pagal
12-09 07:55 PM
Hello,
:) Just a clarification around job requirements:
GC is always for a future position, so there is no need for the employer to keep the position (nor to keep it vacant). The employer needs to confirm that the position will be made available to the individual as soon as GC is issued.
If you get the GC and the position is not available, your GC is not in any jeopardy. Once the employer confirms that the position is no longer available, you are free to choose any other job. If you have already waited 4-5 years for GC, the same/similar job requirement also reduces in significance for post GC issued job.
PS: I know a few friends who waited to get their US citizenship and immediately relocated to India! Human mind is strange!! :)
:) Just a clarification around job requirements:
GC is always for a future position, so there is no need for the employer to keep the position (nor to keep it vacant). The employer needs to confirm that the position will be made available to the individual as soon as GC is issued.
If you get the GC and the position is not available, your GC is not in any jeopardy. Once the employer confirms that the position is no longer available, you are free to choose any other job. If you have already waited 4-5 years for GC, the same/similar job requirement also reduces in significance for post GC issued job.
PS: I know a few friends who waited to get their US citizenship and immediately relocated to India! Human mind is strange!! :)
dresses -apple-desktop-ackground
cygent
04-01 07:43 PM
Thanks,
Ok, let me put it this way.
Is the any advantage (or not), filing 140 1st, and lets say your PD is already current, file AOS later. I.E. file them Separately, not in the same packet.
So in this scenario, is the any difference vs. filing concurrently or not?
Ok, let me put it this way.
Is the any advantage (or not), filing 140 1st, and lets say your PD is already current, file AOS later. I.E. file them Separately, not in the same packet.
So in this scenario, is the any difference vs. filing concurrently or not?
more...
makeup cool desktop backgrounds. cool
pa_arora
09-21 12:49 PM
.. by trying to get our provisions included in this bill .. Duh..
I may not know the process completely, but how does it work as the Bill has already been passed. Can somebody amend the Bill after it passed? If yes, dosen't it needs to go thru the the voting again?
ciao
-p
I may not know the process completely, but how does it work as the Bill has already been passed. Can somebody amend the Bill after it passed? If yes, dosen't it needs to go thru the the voting again?
ciao
-p
girlfriend cool desktop backgrounds free.
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
05-01 10:07 AM
Thanks guys for all your responses....
I got the paperwork from my attorney for my wife's 485 as they want us to be ready so that if dates are current, we just mail the paperwork without having to start at that time.
However, my wife is pregnant and i am not sure if medical examinations are possible. What are my options ?
I got the paperwork from my attorney for my wife's 485 as they want us to be ready so that if dates are current, we just mail the paperwork without having to start at that time.
However, my wife is pregnant and i am not sure if medical examinations are possible. What are my options ?
hairstyles cool backgrounds for desktop.
deepakd
07-10 01:33 AM
USCIS do call the company, a friend of mine who already got his GC, USCIS called the company in India to confirm the employment.
Thanks
I would take my words back instead of never I would say the chances are slim that USCIS would call the employer. Never heard of this before this
Thanks
I would take my words back instead of never I would say the chances are slim that USCIS would call the employer. Never heard of this before this
bobbydalal
05-21 10:13 AM
Guys whatever will happen we got to start sending faxes to white house too. We got to overdo the numberusa pepole by far if we want any hope of relief for EB category.If u go on numberusa they r sending fax everyday to whitehouse n congress. So we got to do the same and overdo them. We got to get congress look at our cases and the years of waiting to get our green cards So the forum should do something and we all should start faxing.
srini1976
07-09 08:14 AM
If you havent already seen threads here about how bad the desi employers here in US can be, companies like Satyam, Infosys who are based in India have even worst reputation..they pay indian salaries and expect round the clock work including weekends..and ofcourse no pay..working at McDonalds is probably a better option than these companies...
I had a very bad experience working for one of those companies and many more friends had similar experience.
You are absolutely right my friend. And its certainly a better option to work at McDonalds :)
I had a very bad experience working for one of those companies and many more friends had similar experience.
You are absolutely right my friend. And its certainly a better option to work at McDonalds :)
No comments:
Post a Comment