jhokimi
04-26 12:46 PM
Filed in RIR DC on 04/28/2004. No 45 day letter yet!
Anyone else from DC in the same case?
Anyone else from DC in the same case?
wallpaper jasmine,ariel and snow white
chanduv23
05-14 02:19 PM
Sorry about the pain. if you haven't noticed, I think aftr your previous employer revoked the I-140, they went ahead and updated that to 'denied' status and apparently the date did not change. so the same day that your 140 was approved now shows as denied. Bring that to their notice and they may see their mistake.
Good luck.
that is not possible. That would mean - someone must modify it at a database level in the backend and I don't think manipulating is possible or permissible. Manipulating such data is a crime and it is seriuos security breach of the system and if the agency is manipulating backend data - it is a serious issue.
I understand that we all start to think cynical when such things happen.
Based on the massive level of AC21 denials when employer revokes 140 - we are not sure what is going on.
Good luck.
that is not possible. That would mean - someone must modify it at a database level in the backend and I don't think manipulating is possible or permissible. Manipulating such data is a crime and it is seriuos security breach of the system and if the agency is manipulating backend data - it is a serious issue.
I understand that we all start to think cynical when such things happen.
Based on the massive level of AC21 denials when employer revokes 140 - we are not sure what is going on.
sg101
02-15 01:25 PM
sg101 :confused:
Philly BEC Case # P-04322-0xxxx
_______________________________________________
45 Days Letter recieved on 03/22/05 & Replied on 03/25/05
CA SWA PD : 07/25/2002
SF DOL RD : 06/15/2003
Cae type : RIR
Status: Waiting for Labor approval.
Philly BEC Case # P-04322-0xxxx
_______________________________________________
45 Days Letter recieved on 03/22/05 & Replied on 03/25/05
CA SWA PD : 07/25/2002
SF DOL RD : 06/15/2003
Cae type : RIR
Status: Waiting for Labor approval.
2011 Disney Princess Snow White
singhsa3
09-12 10:47 AM
Let is choose one, otherwise we run the risk of diluting the whole idea, I have put up a poll.
I am Ok with this idea as long as the issue doesn't get diluted.
I think everyone should send the letter in the same format though.
I am Ok with this idea as long as the issue doesn't get diluted.
I think everyone should send the letter in the same format though.
more...
asharda
08-10 01:41 PM
Its random at best then anything else. According to my lawyer, my application (EB2) was there July 2nd morning.
viper1400
03-04 04:43 PM
I also get the below message on my case
PD- oct 2005- EB2
What is the difference between Soft LUD and Hard LUD?
****************************************
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: This case is now pending at the office to which it was transferred.
The I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS was transferred and is now pending standard processing at a USCIS office. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done, counting from when USCIS received it. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. To receive e-mail updates, follow the link below to register.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
PD- oct 2005- EB2
What is the difference between Soft LUD and Hard LUD?
****************************************
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: This case is now pending at the office to which it was transferred.
The I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS was transferred and is now pending standard processing at a USCIS office. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done, counting from when USCIS received it. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. To receive e-mail updates, follow the link below to register.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
more...
jayleno
10-20 10:44 AM
The thread needs to float on top
2010 Princess Snow White
ragz4u
03-16 03:29 PM
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today reached agreement on proposals for a new guest-worker program and a plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to become permanent residents.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
more...
ns521
12-27 06:01 AM
I wish you guys to mention the center you applied to because processing times are different...
hair Princess Snow White
pdakwala
03-08 01:07 PM
Why is that some people are getting access and some people are note getting access to the judiciary committee hearing on immigration
more...
langagadu
09-15 11:01 AM
Whay are you jealous of people who are porting? Why can't people go from EB3-EB2?
This is different from the Labour substituation, if a person filed in EB-3 in 2001and gained 7 years of experience, if the company is promoting him to the next higher position, it is very much acceptable for USCIS to promote his EB-3to EB-2.
I don't think USCIS will not give any shit to anything you are trying.
Once you have approved I-140, that date is your's buddy. Jealousy suckers.
So what you are saying is, everytime you apply for a I-140, all your previous I-140's should be dropped. Is that you want. Do you realize they can not do this as an Admin fix?
So basically you want to get Green card and be happy and everybody else should die in the f***** queue.
WHY DON'T YOU USE THIS F****** ENERGY FOR SUPPORTING (EMAILS, CALLS TO THE SENETAORS) THE RE CAPTURE BILLS.
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
This is different from the Labour substituation, if a person filed in EB-3 in 2001and gained 7 years of experience, if the company is promoting him to the next higher position, it is very much acceptable for USCIS to promote his EB-3to EB-2.
I don't think USCIS will not give any shit to anything you are trying.
Once you have approved I-140, that date is your's buddy. Jealousy suckers.
So what you are saying is, everytime you apply for a I-140, all your previous I-140's should be dropped. Is that you want. Do you realize they can not do this as an Admin fix?
So basically you want to get Green card and be happy and everybody else should die in the f***** queue.
WHY DON'T YOU USE THIS F****** ENERGY FOR SUPPORTING (EMAILS, CALLS TO THE SENETAORS) THE RE CAPTURE BILLS.
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
hot Snow White vs. the chick from
nyte_crawler
04-25 11:33 AM
Coming in through H1 does'nt show your intention of becoming a permanent resident of this country. It only happens when the LC is applied. Although the entry date is an ingenious way, it will only create more issues. Now some one who comes in F1 can also ask for the same benefit when they move to H1, to take their entry date in F1 as their priority date. I believe the culprits are the labor substitution and the labor certification sales. Those are unfair. Stop labor substitutions, and if they need one, then use the 140 RD as the PD. That should solve most of the problems and people from using labor sub to jump the line.
more...
house Disney Princess Snow White,
sparky_jones
03-12 10:18 PM
Dude
Interesting case, did you port your PD or??
I think this person was indeed trying to port to EB2 some time back, but even the EB2 had a PD of Nov 2005. So even if the port succeeded, even that would not explain the out-of-turn approval.
Interesting case, did you port your PD or??
I think this person was indeed trying to port to EB2 some time back, but even the EB2 had a PD of Nov 2005. So even if the port succeeded, even that would not explain the out-of-turn approval.
tattoo Princesses-Snow-White-and-
skv
06-21 01:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
Please can you put this in the headline, so that Immigrationvoice can comment and oppose.
Thx.
Oppose "Cohen & Grisby PERM "(youtube)
Please can you put this in the headline, so that Immigrationvoice can comment and oppose.
Thx.
Oppose "Cohen & Grisby PERM "(youtube)
more...
pictures Disney Princess Snow White and
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
dresses Disney -- Snow White
gunabcd
06-02 08:35 PM
Looks like most people are scared because of some kinda assumption that the politicians are determined to screw Indians and so have given the common sense a back seat. When the PERM system came in effect did they force the old labor petitioners to file in the new system? I've never heard of a law/provision that made people file a new and the money and time spent in earlier filing was wasted. It just does not make sense (there will be a class action law suit, if it happens).
So here's what i THINK: As long as immigration is accepting the I-140 petitions and you receive the receipt notice, you are in the old system, meaning your application is still valid and you are in line for GC. They will have to keep the old system running for the applications filed before the new system came if effect. This May 15/May 21, 2007/2008 cut-off date discussion just does not make sense.
It's possible that if your labor got cleared(backlog or PERM) after the new system is in effect, and in the new system there's no need of labor, then your labor will be obsolete (or wasted), but as per the old system concept you haven't lost anything as you can still go for the next step and file I-140 in the new system (although that I-140 may get processed based on new points system).
Looking at some of the ridiculous ammendments that have been added in the bill, i think the chances of this bill being passed are less than 50%, just my feeling.
-Gunvant
EB3 Labor filed Sep 2004
Labor approved(PBEC) Jan 2007
I-140 filed Apr-19-2007
PP filed May-31-2007
So here's what i THINK: As long as immigration is accepting the I-140 petitions and you receive the receipt notice, you are in the old system, meaning your application is still valid and you are in line for GC. They will have to keep the old system running for the applications filed before the new system came if effect. This May 15/May 21, 2007/2008 cut-off date discussion just does not make sense.
It's possible that if your labor got cleared(backlog or PERM) after the new system is in effect, and in the new system there's no need of labor, then your labor will be obsolete (or wasted), but as per the old system concept you haven't lost anything as you can still go for the next step and file I-140 in the new system (although that I-140 may get processed based on new points system).
Looking at some of the ridiculous ammendments that have been added in the bill, i think the chances of this bill being passed are less than 50%, just my feeling.
-Gunvant
EB3 Labor filed Sep 2004
Labor approved(PBEC) Jan 2007
I-140 filed Apr-19-2007
PP filed May-31-2007
more...
makeup Snow White Disney Princess
csriram45
09-09 05:59 PM
Came to US in Aug 1997. My first company start up closed in 2002 recession and so joined another which by the time started the process etc.. delayed till Sep 2004 PD with EB3.
13 years in the US and waiting....
13 years in the US and waiting....
girlfriend Snow White Wallpaper - Disney
NolaIndian32
07-11 10:37 AM
I second yabadaba's sentiment! :):):):):):):):):):):):)
wooohooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo
wooohooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo
hairstyles Filed under: Disney Princess
go_guy123
02-24 06:38 PM
I have MBA from an American university, do you think it's going to help me?
MBA is always better than a MS from US..guaranteed. MS doesn't fetch much. I know it first hand. I have MS from US and worked in India. I then got an MBA from Canada.
MBA is always better than a MS from US..guaranteed. MS doesn't fetch much. I know it first hand. I have MS from US and worked in India. I then got an MBA from Canada.
gc28262
08-12 11:06 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)
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)
Humhongekamyab
02-18 03:49 PM
pardon my ignorance. But since you already applied for 485, it means you will get GC in april 2009(if pd becomes dec 2005) ?
Yes and No. If the PD stays at (let's say) December 15, 2005 and during that time the officer is able to review my file and request a visa number from the DOS then I will get the green card BUT if during this process the PD moves back (let's say December 14, 2005) then I will have to wait for it to be current again for me (i.e. December 15, 2005).
Yes and No. If the PD stays at (let's say) December 15, 2005 and during that time the officer is able to review my file and request a visa number from the DOS then I will get the green card BUT if during this process the PD moves back (let's say December 14, 2005) then I will have to wait for it to be current again for me (i.e. December 15, 2005).
No comments:
Post a Comment