PDA

View Full Version : Proposed modification to regulation for allowing EAD for certain H4s


Administrator2
07-14-2014, 05:52 PM
As an organization, Immigration Voice also submitted comments applauding the change and provided recommendations for how the proposed modification could be further improved.

Here is the link to our comments to the proposed regulation -
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2010-0017-12336)

We are hoping for swift implementation of the final regulation.

Thanks to everyone who submitted positive comments for proposed modification to regulation concerning allowing work authorization for H-4 visa holders.

IV

sdeshpan
07-14-2014, 07:25 PM
Great comments, well thought out and articulated. How does the process work - the "recommendations" made by IV, although perfectly sensible, how does USCIS even start to consider them, assuming they have the will to do so? Does that alter the process in any way?

Administrator2
07-14-2014, 09:30 PM
Great comments, well thought out and articulated. How does the process work - the "recommendations" made by IV, although perfectly sensible, how does USCIS even start to consider them, assuming they have the will to do so? Does that alter the process in any way?

At a high level, the next step will involve for DHS/USCIS to go through the submitted comments. DHS/USCIS will review the suggestions/recommendations. At their discretion, based on the merit of the suggestions, DHS/USCIS may decide to amend the proposed rule with some of the suggestions before publishing a final rule. Then the agency will publish the final rule in the federal register and it generally goes into effect after 30 days.

There could be more steps involved but if you are interested to learn more, here is an official document about the rule making process:

https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

whiteStallion
07-15-2014, 01:13 AM
This is a great initiative, if DOL/USCIS agrees to the 4th point, it will help thousands of EB3s. Kudos to IV for this.

gcharry
07-15-2014, 07:41 AM
Thank you Admin and rest of the team.

indianguy220
07-15-2014, 11:28 AM
Thank you for all the effort IV put into this regulation while most of the big law firms couldn't care less to even write a small letter supporting this.

sdeshpan
07-15-2014, 06:59 PM
I found this relevant news article, please remove if it's not considered helpful to the discussion:

Obama has big options for green card, H-1B reform without Congress - Computerworld (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249614/Obama_has_big_options_for_green_card_H_1B_reform_w ithout_Congress_)

Any specific reason why this "counting of dependents" wasn't included in the recommendations?

greyhair
07-15-2014, 07:17 PM
I found this relevant news article, please remove if it's not considered helpful to the discussion:

Obama has big options for green card, H-1B reform without Congress - Computerworld (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249614/Obama_has_big_options_for_green_card_H_1B_reform_w ithout_Congress_)

Any specific reason why this "counting of dependents" wasn't included in the recommendations?

Oh boy now IV is caught with pants down. Time for h1techslave gctorture and closemind.247 to jump on you. Why did you create more backlogs for Eb3-I by not asking for this. Now there is only one thing left for IV to say "You got me partner".

8CBYjAI1Lf0

sdeshpan
07-15-2014, 07:24 PM
Oh boy now IV is caught with pants down. Time for h1techslave gctorture and closemind.247 to jump on you. Why did you create more backlogs for Eb3-I by not asking for this. Now there is only one thing left for IV to say "You got me partner".

I don't see how this specific provision will help only EB-3 or why a specific group of people should get pissed. It is beneficial for all equally, but again, my point is not to create more controversy. It was an honest question to the IV leadership team to see if there were some genuine concerns with this - not everything mentioned in media articles makes sense legally, so IV can easily clarify the story behind this, I hope!

The last thing I want is more comments from stirring the pot using my post.

Administrator2
07-15-2014, 10:10 PM
I found this relevant news article, please remove if it's not considered helpful to the discussion:

Obama has big options for green card, H-1B reform without Congress - Computerworld (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249614/Obama_has_big_options_for_green_card_H_1B_reform_w ithout_Congress_)

Any specific reason why this "counting of dependents" wasn't included in the recommendations?

The comments were submitted in response to proposed regulation for Spousal work authorization (i.e. EAD for H-4). To make sense and to sound reasonable, the comments had to be pertinent to the justification and/or specific sections/sub-sections of the law used to make a case for Spousal work authorization administrative fix. So we could only make recommendations to further improve the proposed regulation.

Based on statements made over two weeks ago by Speaker Boehner and The President, it is possible that there could be another round of immigration related Executive Order in the coming weeks and months. We had sent two different newsletters on this subject within this month:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/immigration-voice/immigration-voice-newsletter-7012014/743435699055990

https://www.facebook.com/notes/immigration-voice/immigration-voice-newsletter-7152014/750847964981430

We have been working on these fixes for a period of time and we request everyone to get active and follow this debate closely. To make it to work, we may need help to make phone calls and/or write/fax letters on a short notice.

gk_2000
07-16-2014, 11:04 AM
A2: Much appreciate what you have done here. Thank you!

DallasBlue
07-16-2014, 01:30 PM
USCIS should consider allowing submitting and receiving of adjustment of status when a visa number is not available (meaning when dates are not current), allowing backlogged applicants can get work authorization and advance parole

Hope this becomes a reality.

DallasBlue
07-16-2014, 01:43 PM
Can IV propose :

to exclude counting of dependent visas from employment categories and make the dependents of employment visas as riders.
to count dependents of employment based visas in some other family category.


Thanks

Dear President Obama ,

Could you please change the policy on derivative visa counts for employment based category by issuing an executive administration fix order.

We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act.



Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says:

A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.”


Thanking you

Administrator2
07-16-2014, 02:15 PM
Can IV propose :

to exclude counting of dependent visas from employment categories and make the dependents of employment visas as riders.
to count dependents of employment based visas in some other family category.


Thanks

Thanks for your suggestions. Counting EB dependents in family category will not happen. Asking something like this will alienate with a lot of people who are otherwise supportive of our cause. It will not be prudent to alienate sympathetic decision makers and not get anything in return. More importantly there is no legal basis for asking something like this.

Administrative fix and executive order has limitations to abide by the existing law. Anything not within the existing law will not be considered. Administrative fix or executive order is not a substitute for bill in Congress.

We welcome all suggestions and ideas you may have. However, we do request that you do your research and provide legal basis for your suggestions/ideas. Just writing a wish list that has no legal basis within the existing law will not help. Another thing to consider is the political viability of the ask.

Asking to count EB dependents in family based category is neither legally possible nor politically viable.

DallasBlue
07-16-2014, 04:04 PM
again thank you for your thankless service.

We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act.


Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says:

A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.”

Administrator2
07-16-2014, 05:24 PM
again thank you for your thankless service.

We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act.


Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says:

A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.”

This is a good argument, but not good enough.

Need to refine this argument about only 1 visa is left at the end of the year. USCIS can waste that visa without allocating that visa to anyone. According to the law, 140,000 visas is not a mandatory number of visas to be allocated. 140,000 visas is a higher cap or ceiling. Contrary to forum-legend that somehow USCIS is wasting visas or USCIS is breaking the law, neither of which is true, the law gives USCIS discretion to allocate any number of visas less than 140,000. You may or may not like this, but this is the law.

If that last visa is remaining, the law does not require that USCIS must allocate that last visa. USCIS can decide not to allocate that visa, which we all like call "lost visa".

amulchandra
07-16-2014, 06:02 PM
With no CIR in sight ,I think not counting dependents is the only thing that could give real relief to EB3 India. All other options are going to help to some extent but the backlog will exist for eternity. EB3 I people with 2003 PDs are still waiting for their turn in 2014 while all other categories including EB2 I are flying past.

I don't mean to be rude or selfish but trying to be be practical. I think there needs to be at least one time fix for people waiting in line patiently for more than 10 years.

Administrator2
07-16-2014, 07:55 PM
With no CIR in sight ,I think not counting dependents is the only thing that could give real relief to EB3 India. All other options are going to help to some extent but the backlog will exist for eternity. EB3 I people with 2003 PDs are still waiting for their turn in 2014 while all other categories including EB2 I are flying past.

I don't mean to be rude or selfish but trying to be be practical. I think there needs to be at least one time fix for people waiting in line patiently for more than 10 years.

Thanks for your comments and registering what you think. It would be more helpful and add value if you could please provide legal basis for your suggestion.

DallasBlue
07-17-2014, 04:06 PM
This is a good argument, but not good enough.

Need to refine this argument about only 1 visa is left at the end of the year. USCIS can waste that visa without allocating that visa to anyone. According to the law, 140,000 visas is not a mandatory number of visas to be allocated. 140,000 visas is a higher cap or ceiling. Contrary to forum-legend that somehow USCIS is wasting visas or USCIS is breaking the law, neither of which is true, the law gives USCIS discretion to allocate any number of visas less than 140,000. You may or may not like this, but this is the law.

If that last visa is remaining, the law does not require that USCIS must allocate that last visa. USCIS can decide not to allocate that visa, which we all like call "lost visa".


Agree, example is bad :-( But the fact is that


"There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers."


Let us examine what INA § 203.


Am not a lawyer, so cant argue much here on this.

Thanks

Administrator2
07-18-2014, 06:06 PM
Agree, example is bad :-( But the fact is that


"There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers."


Let us examine what INA § 203.


Am not a lawyer, so cant argue much here on this.

Thanks

First of all we want you to know that IV is your biggest friend and well wisher when it comes to resolving backlogs for good. When we say that, we do our best to tell you the truth so you can differentiate reality from fiction.

It is just not true that "There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas."

8 U.S.C. 1255 (b) says:
(b) Record of lawful admission for permanent residence; reduction of preference visas
Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General shall record the alien’s lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 1152 and 1153 of this title within the class to which the alien is chargeable for the fiscal year then current.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1255

This means, unless otherwise noted, this section governs how every allocated green card under 1153 (which includes EB category) is to be counted such that each adjustment of status application approved equals one preference visas for that year.

Although it is true that dependents do not have to file for Immigrant petition (I-140 or I-130), the visa number is not counted for every immigrant petition approved. According to law, visa number is to be counted for every Adjustment of Status (I-485) application approved.


The second part of your post is not correct if you look at the existing to law. You said "While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers."

If you look at Section 203(c) (d) of the INA reads as:

“A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.”

This means dependents are "entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration" only until dependents are waiting to be allocated immigrant status or issuance of green car number. But once the visa is available and dependents are allocated visa number (i.e. their green card petition is approved), 1255 (b) governs how the visa number is counted, and that formula to used for counting visa number is defined in 1255 (b), which is:

Each adjustment of status application approved = One preference visa from specific category for that year.

As you can see, there is no ambiguity here. Each lawyer will have her/his opinion. But the only opinion that matters is the one of the decision makers whose has the job to interpret the law.

Hope you understand that all of us, specially those who want to see this issue resolve, inherit the responsibility to see through facts over fiction. Sorry if this is not the answer you were looking for but it is what it is. Please focus on what is possible, and not spend your time on what won't happen.

Please feel free to share any other counter argument or cite relevant law. Any meaningful suggestion is always welcome.

open.247
07-18-2014, 07:15 PM
dear sdespan, greyhairs

stop calling bad names to people who belongs to EB3 -I . by doing so you are showing your narrow mindedness .
H4 EAD is beneficial to all . what I am trying to bring you people's attention is do and try to get some thing which resolve the problem of back log . and all other stuff will be taken care it self .
you EB2 are very happy with the movements of dates .

look and try to feel the pain of EB3 . Dont you think this issue is major crisis , which should be brought to reformation of broken system. beside EAD and advance parole etc.

look like iv other name should be EB2 IV only.
Please resolve the bigger problem of visa number and allocation of visa numbers on seniority basis.
This will comforts people like me who are waiting from last 15 years.
dont advise to port to eb2 or go back bla bla bla!!!
you guys seems to be selfish.
Thanks

rajesprasad
07-18-2014, 07:24 PM
The rules you have quoted and discussed in your post have been termed by other lawyers and previous lawmakers as "Administrative Interpretation" of the legislation and they are not an integral part of the original legislation. So the argument is being made that the President has the authority to "Correct" this interpretation.

I have read about this line of thinking on several other sites. I do not see the harm in exploring it.

rajesprasad
07-18-2014, 07:26 PM
The above post was in response to the earlier detailed post by the "Administrator2". Thanks

Administrator2
07-18-2014, 08:01 PM
The rules you have quoted and discussed in your post have been termed by other lawyers and previous lawmakers as "Administrative Interpretation" of the legislation and they are not an integral part of the original legislation. So the argument is being made that the President has the authority to "Correct" this interpretation.

I have read about this line of thinking on several other sites. I do not see the harm in exploring it.

rajesprasad,

We agree with you that there is no harm in exploring. But what makes you think that we have already not explored this idea? Every lawyer has her/his opinion. Opinions means nothing.

What we shared above is the engraved in the law. It is clear how the numbers ought to be counted. There is absolutely no ambiguity.

This is not directed at you. Many people tells us - "no harm in exploring", which will seem like a fair statement. But it is not fair statement because no one has unlimited time and budget to keep "exploring" ideas or action items created by anonymous handles who refuse to standup for themselves.

When someone says - "no harm in exploring" - it somehow seem to suggest that we are sitting ideal and have nothing else to do. How about this, why don't you explore idea and see how it goes? And when we are "exploring", it takes time away from things that we are already working on for a while, ideas that are possible. So clearly, there is grave harm to other provisions if we keep exploring things that won't happen.

Anyways, getting back to the topic, the discussion we are having here is part of "exploring". We are asking for anything that is legitimate and in the process sharing with you the reason why some idea is not reasonable specifically quoting subsection of the law. And, we are saying, if you have a suggestion, please do let us know, and we WILL look into the idea. So other than just typing anonymously on online forum, we are saying, we will do something concrete. Is there any other place online where you can post a suggestion and you are assured that it is weighed-in, and if your suggestion is valid, we will present it to the right folks? The other websites you are quoting, if those people feel so sure, why did they not already do anything about not counting dependents? I know the reason, because of the reason I shared with you in the earlier post. But folks keep telling us "no harm in exploring" for things that are absurd and out of line with the existing law.

Please do not just say - "other sites are saying it" or "no harm in exploring" because it adds zero real value. Look, we are on the same team, just because we are discussing here and telling you without sugarcoating , it does not mean we are not on the same team or we are not exploring or have already not explored. We are presenting valid arguments why specific provision is not possible, why don't you present your argument and show that it is possible. If not, then lets work on other provisions that are possible, and not harp on something that will not happen.

rajesprasad
07-18-2014, 08:58 PM
Thanks for your message. You have pretty much clarified for me that the only IV solution for us EB3 I will be to wait for legislation. I have been with IV from 2004 and have seen all the ups and downs on legislation for the last 10 years. It is not a hopeful situation.

IF you are right and the President does not provide any relief for us then it is business as usual for us. However if by some miracle he does then I am sure you all would not deserve the obligatory congratulations and thanks that IV followers are required to provide.

Administrator2
07-18-2014, 09:43 PM
Thanks for your message. You have pretty much clarified for me that the only IV solution for us EB3 I will be to wait for legislation. I have been with IV from 2004 and have seen all the ups and downs on legislation for the last 10 years. It is not a hopeful situation.

IF you are right and the President does not provide any relief for us then it is business as usual for us. However if by some miracle he does then I am sure you all would not deserve the obligatory congratulations and thanks that IV followers are required to provide.



It is funny that you think that IV is working for your obligatory congratulations and thanks.

So a little bit of push back and you play victim card on the drop of a hat. You have no real value or positive arguments to add. Instead of providing positive input, you believe that everyone around you is working against you.

Don't you think when we ask for any provision from decision makers, then we also have to answer the same questions and we also are required to give valid answers. Unlike you, we don't have the luxury to meltdown every time anyone says - no.

Rather than providing any answers, you start throwing mud all around. You are not the only EB3-I on this planet. Before I graduated through the process, I was also EB3-I. Develop thicker skin if you want to influence any change and stop melting like wax with little heat.

We are working on other provisions that are possible. Just because this provision is not possible doesn't mean you have to play victim card. And no, we don't need your obligatory congratulations and thanks. Frankly, I don't give a damn about what you think. Stop being keyboard tiger and standup for yourself. No, I'm not asking for any favors or obligatory thanks from you.

Administrator2
07-18-2014, 10:32 PM
dear sdespan, greyhairs

stop calling bad names to people who belongs to EB3 -I . by doing so you are showing your narrow mindedness .
H4 EAD is beneficial to all . what I am trying to bring you people's attention is do and try to get some thing which resolve the problem of back log . and all other stuff will be taken care it self .
you EB2 are very happy with the movements of dates .

look and try to feel the pain of EB3 . Dont you think this issue is major crisis , which should be brought to reformation of broken system. beside EAD and advance parole etc.

look like iv other name should be EB2 IV only.
Please resolve the bigger problem of visa number and allocation of visa numbers on seniority basis.
This will comforts people like me who are waiting from last 15 years.
dont advise to port to eb2 or go back bla bla bla!!!
you guys seems to be selfish.
Thanks

open.247,

I don't know who you are and what is your agenda. But whoever you are, you seem to be only interested in creating a rift between people on Eb2 and Eb3. Your every post is somehow designed for other people on the forum to get negative and fight with each other.

You are not really waiting for 15 years, because if you were really waiting for 15 years, you would have been matured enough to know that creating unnecessary artificial rift between Eb3 and Eb2 is absolutely never ever going to helping anyone. Probably that is what you want. This artificial unnecessary rift between Eb3 and Eb2, which some other forums tend to promote and thrive upon, is partially responsible for these unresolved issues. It seems that people like you make sure that you keep posting repeated negative messages over and over again creating artificial rift between Eb3 and Eb2. It is easy to convince unsuspecting Eb3 folks frustrated due to decades long backlog that people in Eb2 are their enemy.

To create negativity and fights between people, it seems that all your posts are designed to create a message for Eb3 folks that:

1.) No one cares for Eb3
2.) There is a conspiracy going on against Eb3
3.) People in Eb2 category are sworn enemy
4.) People in Eb2 have conspired against Eb3 and Eb2 is partying because their dates are moving.

Well, first of all I started this organization and I'm Eb3. So get a life and try to step outside of your twisted mind. The real world doesn't operate like your fantasy conspiracy. You have absolutely no knowledge that when we do lobby days in DC every quarter, Eb2 folks come from far off places like UT, AZ, CA, WA, ME, ND etc states, spend many days traveling away from their families and work, and advocate for backlog resolution of everyone the same way (including Eb3).

So no matter how hard you try, most people don't have dirty mind as you do. Get a life man.

Murthy
07-19-2014, 08:08 AM
First of all we want you to know that IV is your biggest friend and well wisher when it comes to resolving backlogs for good. When we say that, we do our best to tell you the truth so you can differentiate reality from fiction.

It is just not true that "There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas."

8 U.S.C. 1255 (b) says:
(b) Record of lawful admission for permanent residence; reduction of preference visas
Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General shall record the alien’s lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 1152 and 1153 of this title within the class to which the alien is chargeable for the fiscal year then current.

Source: 8 U.S. Code § 1255 - Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1255)

This means, unless otherwise noted, this section governs how every allocated green card under 1153 (which includes EB category) is to be counted such that each adjustment of status application approved equals one preference visas for that year.

Although it is true that dependents do not have to file for Immigrant petition (I-140 or I-130), the visa number is not counted for every immigrant petition approved. According to law, visa number is to be counted for every Adjustment of Status (I-485) application approved.


The second part of your post is not correct if you look at the existing to law. You said "While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers."

If you look at Section 203(c) (d) of the INA reads as:

“A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.”

This means dependents are "entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration" only until dependents are waiting to be allocated immigrant status or issuance of green car number. But once the visa is available and dependents are allocated visa number (i.e. their green card petition is approved), 1255 (b) governs how the visa number is counted, and that formula to used for counting visa number is defined in 1255 (b), which is:

Each adjustment of status application approved = One preference visa from specific category for that year.

As you can see, there is no ambiguity here. Each lawyer will have her/his opinion. But the only opinion that matters is the one of the decision makers whose has the job to interpret the law.

Hope you understand that all of us, specially those who want to see this issue resolve, inherit the responsibility to see through facts over fiction. Sorry if this is not the answer you were looking for but it is what it is. Please focus on what is possible, and not spend your time on what won't happen.

Please feel free to share any other counter argument or cite relevant law. Any meaningful suggestion is always welcome.
Dear Aman
Thanks for your explaining law in detail. Hope all folks understand the situation and not fight each other.You provided excellent , clear & simple to understand formula "Each adjustment of status application approved = One preference visa from specific category for that year". Now it should be clear for every one derivative count off is not possible by admin fixes. How about visa spill over rules changing by PD among EB categories. I posted this topic some time back. Does this also need the law to be amended by Congress ? Suppose an Admin fix can be possible ,how as a group we can represent to USCIS on this. Hope every IV member will agree that this is a very fair fix and will reduce backlogs and gives great relief for decade long waiting EB3 folks.
Can you please tell your/IV opinion on this ?.

waitingnwaiting
07-19-2014, 10:15 AM
Dear Aman
Thanks for your explaining law in detail. Hope all folks understand the situation and not fight each other.You provided excellent , clear & simple to understand formula "Each adjustment of status application approved = One preference visa from specific category for that year". Now it should be clear for every one derivative count off is not possible by admin fixes. How about visa spill over rules changing by PD among EB categories. I posted this topic some time back. Does this also need the law to be amended by Congress ? Suppose an Admin fix can be possible ,how as a group we can represent to USCIS on this. Hope every IV member will agree that this is a very fair fix and will reduce backlogs and gives great relief for decade long waiting EB3 folks.
Can you please tell your/IV opinion on this ?.

Murthy have you researched legal basis of this idea? How does existing law says and how is spillover interpreted. Will your interpretation contradict existing law?
Let's not say we are not lawyers and so we can only give high level ideas. What I am saying is that your idea is good and you should back it up with legal research yourself. I don't want IV core to do research for us or spend money from their pocket to find answer to every idea we post. I request them also not to reply to every idea. It is a crucial time for admin fixes and they should be spending time in meetings and not forum. Let EB3 people do their research and finalize ideas that are as per law and submit a proposal to IV. That is a better management.

open.247
07-19-2014, 09:53 PM
Dear administrator 2

I am trying to bring EB3 -I backlog and pain to lime light. and it looks like many of you feel offended and interpretation of my post as drifting gap between eb2 eb3 . or I am some one paid from some other site,or i am dump and bla bla bla!!!! .
You guys not even once said and felt the pain of being stuck in back log as all visa # are consumed by EB2 .

Dont you think you should make a move and bring issue of social justice for all . which simple words means priority dates should be allocated on seniority vise instead of these categories based on who has masters and number of years of experience in the field.
Did IV ever raised the issue of limitation on number of years one has to wait for GC and renewal of EAD.
Bring these issues of social justice into your arguments you will have good luck for all.
You can win on grounds of social justice and humanitarian grounds . And dont challenge present law on its technical grounds . Ask for Big things for common good . Think Big.
dont think narrow in terms of some one trying to divide eb2 eb3 .
How can you not feel eb3 pain of being there at 2003 still where as all other countries and categories are in 2008 and 2011.????
work on broader perspective . I feel offended by your comments for me .
I expect some thing better and high thinking from Administrators .
Thanks

DallasBlue
07-20-2014, 01:51 AM
First of all we want you to know that IV is your biggest friend and well wisher when it comes to resolving backlogs for good. When we say that, we do our best to tell you the truth so you can differentiate reality from fiction.

It is just not true that "There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas."

8 U.S.C. 1255 (b) says:
(b) Record of lawful admission for permanent residence; reduction of preference visas
Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General shall record the alien’s lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 1152 and 1153 of this title within the class to which the alien is chargeable for the fiscal year then current.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1255

This means, unless otherwise noted, this section governs how every allocated green card under 1153 (which includes EB category) is to be counted such that each adjustment of status application approved equals one preference visas for that year.

Although it is true that dependents do not have to file for Immigrant petition (I-140 or I-130), the visa number is not counted for every immigrant petition approved. According to law, visa number is to be counted for every Adjustment of Status (I-485) application approved.


The second part of your post is not correct if you look at the existing to law. You said "While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers."

If you look at Section 203(c) (d) of the INA reads as:

“A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.”

This means dependents are "entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration" only until dependents are waiting to be allocated immigrant status or issuance of green car number. But once the visa is available and dependents are allocated visa number (i.e. their green card petition is approved), 1255 (b) governs how the visa number is counted, and that formula to used for counting visa number is defined in 1255 (b), which is:

Each adjustment of status application approved = One preference visa from specific category for that year.

As you can see, there is no ambiguity here. Each lawyer will have her/his opinion. But the only opinion that matters is the one of the decision makers whose has the job to interpret the law.

Hope you understand that all of us, specially those who want to see this issue resolve, inherit the responsibility to see through facts over fiction. Sorry if this is not the answer you were looking for but it is what it is. Please focus on what is possible, and not spend your time on what won't happen.

Please feel free to share any other counter argument or cite relevant law. Any meaningful suggestion is always welcome.



There is no regulation in 8 CFR that truly interprets INA § 203(d). Even the Department of State’s regulation at 22 CFR Section 42.32 fails to illuminate the scope or purpose of INA 203(d). It does nothing more than mindlessly parrot INA § 203(d). The authors recall the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v Oregon, 546 US 243, 257 (2006) reminding us that a parroting regulation does not deserve deference:

Simply put, the existence of a parroting regulation does not change the fact that the question here is not the meaning of the regulation but the meaning of the statute. An agency does not acquire special authority to interpret its own words when, instead of using its expertise and experience to formulate a regulation, it has elected merely to paraphrase the statutory language.
It is certainly true that family members are not exempted from being counted under INA § 201(b) as are immediate relatives of US citizens, special immigrants, or those fortunate enough to merit cancellation of their removal. Yet, we note that the title in INA § 201(b) refers to “Aliens Not Subject to Direct Numerical Limitations.” What does this curious phrase mean? Each of the listed exemptions in INA § 201(b) are outside the normal preference categories. That is why they are not subject to direct counting. By contrast, the INA § 203(d) derivatives are wholly within the preference system, bound fast by its stubborn limitations. They are not independent of all numerical constraints, only from direct ones. It is the principal alien through whom they derive their claim who is and has been counted. When viewed from this perspective, there is nothing inconsistent between saying in INA § 203(d) that derivatives should not be independently assessed against the EB or FB cap despite their omission from INA § 201(b) that lists only non-preference category exemptions.

We do not claim that derivative beneficiaries are exempt from numerical limits. As noted above, they are indeed subject in the sense that the principal alien is subject by virtue of being subsumed within the numerical limit that applies to this principal alien. Hence, if no EB or FB numbers were available to the principal alien, the derivatives would not be able to immigrate either. If they were exempt altogether, this would not matter. There is, then, a profound difference between not being counted at all, for which we do not contend, and being counted as an integral family unit rather than as individuals. For this reason, INA § 201(b) simply does not apply. We seek through the simple mechanism of an Executive Order not an exemption from numerical limits but a different way of counting them.

DallasBlue
07-20-2014, 01:55 AM
Other objections present themselves. Skeptics will remind us that, when Congress wished to carve out family members from a quota, even apart from INA § 201(b), it knew how to do so. Take a look at how family members of special immigrant Iraqi translators were treated. In §1244(c) of the Defense Authorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-181, Congress explicitly stated that only principal aliens would be charged against the 5,000 visas allocated to Iraqi translators. Is this a problem? Not really since §1244 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 was clearly emergency legislation designed to extract Iraqi translators from a dangerous situation. The United States properly felt a moral obligation to extract these people who had worked with us and could not allow inadequate visa allotments to jeopardize lives. So §1244 is clearly sui generis. By fortunate contrast, the INA is not emergency legislation.

Another argument can be lodged in opposition to our proposal that President Obama need not wait for Congress to act. We are properly reminded that INA §§ 201(a) (1) and 201 (a) (2) mandate that “family sponsored” and “employment based immigrants” are subject to worldwide limits. Does this not cover spouses and children? After all, the definition of “immigrant” in INA § 101(a) (15) includes “every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens.” Then the rest of the subsection goes on to categorize the various nonimmigrant visa classifications from A to V. True enough but all is not lost. While the term “immigrant” under INA §101(a)(15) (a) (15) includes spouse and children, they were included because, in concert with their principal alien family member, they intended to stay permanently in this their adopted home. No one ever contended they were or are non-immigrants. However, this does not mean that such family derivatives are either “employment based” or “family sponsored” immigrants. No petitioner has filed either an I-140 or I-130 on their behalf. Their claim to immigrant status is wholly a creature of statute, deriving entirely from INA § 203(d) which does not make them independently subject to any quota.

INA § 203(d) must be understood to operate in harmony with other provisions of the INA. Surely, if Congress had meant to deduct derivative beneficiaries, it would have plainly said so somewhere in the INA. The 1952 Act has been amended numerous times for many different reasons over the years. At no point did Congress do so. Under the theory of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Congress had not authorized such deduction. Surely, if this was not the case, Congress would have made its intent part of the INA. Interpreting a statute through its plain meaning trumps all other cannons of interpretation, and the following quotes from notable Supreme Court decisions are worth noting:

[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.
Rubin v. United States, 449 U. S. 424, 430 (1981).

Prior to IMMACT 90,[4] which took effect on October 1, 1991, the start of FY 1992, family members were counted against the cap but there was no explicit provision as in current INA § 203(d) granting them the same visa and “green card” status as the principal alien family member. What was the purpose then of inserting INA § 203(d)? §101(b)(3) of the House version of IMMACT 90 amended INA § 201(b) to provide that an alien “who is provided immigrant status under INA § 203(d) as the spouse or child of an immigrant under INA 203(b)” would be among the other classes not subject to numerical limitation.[5] Take a look at the Conference Report that accompanied S. 358, IMMACT 90. In the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference at page 121 under the title “Employment Based Immigration” we read the following:

The House amendment allocated 65,000 employment-based visas during the Fiscal Years 1992-96 and 75,000 thereafter not including numerically exempt derivative spouses and children… (emphasis added)[6]
Curiously, there is no explicit mention or discussion of what became of INA § 203(d) in the Conference Report. We next look at House Report No. 101-723 that accompanied House passage of HR 4300 on October 3, 1990. S. 358 passed in lieu of HR 4300 after its language was amended to contain much of the text of the House bill. Under the proposed HR 4300, the 54, 000 visas that were then allocated under the employment-based preference would have been capped at 75,000 principals. Those family members accompanying or following to join were not included in this cap.[7] Candor compels us to admit that the House exemption for derivatives was removed in Conference. Ultimately, Congress enacted INA 201(d) which set a numerical limit of 140,000 for EB immigrants but counting family under that expanded cap. If the House had its way, IMMACT 90 would have had a lower numerical limit of 75,000 EB numbers, but, since family members were not counted, the actual number of EB immigrants would have been higher than 140,000.[8] However, it must be remembered that the House’s intent to exclude family members only applied to the EB not Family quota.

Despite the legislative history cutting against us, it still remains a mystery as to why INA §203(d) was enacted. There was no need to do so since family members were counted in the pre-IMMACT 90 quotas. Was INA § 203(d) introduced to ensure that family members would be counted especially after the House sought to exempt them? Or was it the converse? Could not it be equally the case that INA § 203(d) remains as a vestigial reminder of the House’s intent that was never taken out? The purpose of INA 203(d) then would be to make sure that, even though derivatives would not be counted against an enlarged EB cap, they would not be left out in the cold but still get the same “green card” benefits as the principal?

Our proposal does not call for the President to defy the express or implied will of Congress nor do we suggest for a moment that he should act without due regard for Congressional authorization. The INA remains resolutely undecided on whether family members should be subject to an independent assessment. At a minimum, in such an uncertain situation, the President finds himself in what Justice Jackson famously called a “twilight zone” such that Congressional inertia not merely enables, but actually invites, the exercise of independent presidential authority.[9] In his famous concurring opinion, Justice Jackson reminds us, and should remind our readers as well, that, however meritorious, separation of powers it was not without limit:

While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.[10]
President Obama’s demonstrated willingness to bypass the current gridlock in Congress as a way to enact economic policy should be a model for the same executive initiative as a tool for immigration reform. The creation of law by federal agencies has become the norm rather than the exception in our system of governance , if for no other reason than that the sheer multiplicity of issues, as well as their dense complexity, defy traditional compromise or consensus which are the very hallmarks of Congressional deliberation. Despite the assertion in Article I of the Constitution that “ All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” it is far from novel to acknowledge as we must that independent federal regulatory agencies also exercise legislative powers. As Justice White noted in his dissent in INS v Chadha,[11] 462 U.S. 919, 947 (1983) (White,J., dissenting) after reviewing prior cases upholding broad delegations of legislative power:

These cases establish that by virtue of congressional delegation, legislative power can be exercised by independent agencies and Executive departments without passage of new legislation. For some time, the sheer amount of law- the substantive rules that regulate private conduct and direct the operation of government- made by the agencies has far outnumbered the lawmaking engaged in by Congress through the traditional process. There is no question that agency rulemaking is lawmaking in any functional or realistic sense of the term.
Immigration has historically been linked to foreign policy. Indeed, a core reason for the plenary federal power over immigration is precisely because it implicates real and genuine foreign policy concerns. This is another reason why the Executive enjoys wide, though not unchecked, discretion to effect changes in immigration procedures through sua sponte regulation. Indeed, it is perhaps only a modest exaggeration to maintain that the INA could not be administered in any other way: “The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created…program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress.”[12] . Not only is it appropriate for the President to direct the formulation of immigration policy on technical issues of surpassing importance, this is the way it must be; this is what the Constitution expects. In perhaps the most famous judicial exposition of the need for pragmatic presidential initiative, we end our advocacy in confident reliance upon the still cogent observations of Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland,[13].

Administrator2
07-20-2014, 09:27 AM
We seek through the simple mechanism of an Executive Order not an exemption from numerical limits but a different way of counting them.

You don't need a lawyer to understand this. Will try to break this down to the best of our ability. You can read the legal language yourself and understand what it is saying, it is not rocket science. Just because this is opinion of some immigration lawyer, it doesn't mean it has to be true.

This suggestion and narrative (which you seem have gotten from somewhere else) is known since 2010/2011. We believe that this does not hold good and we believe this is not a valid legal argument because it has not taken into consideration (doesn't even acknowledge the existence of) section 1255(b) which says:

(b) Record of lawful admission for permanent residence; reduction of preference visas

Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General shall record the alien’s lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 1152 and 1153 of this title within the class to which the alien is chargeable for the fiscal year then current.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/125

This means:
1.) It points to requirement for approval of Adjustment of status petition (I-485) application under 1255(a)
2.) And when I485 is approved, 1255(b) defines how the visa allocation has to be recorded such that State Department will keep the count of approved adjustment of status petitions (which is represented in monthly visa bulletin). The applications are approved by USCIS (not be Department of State).
3.) 1255(b) governs the formula how State department will count the visa (for visa bulletin) when each Adjustment of status application is approved (see underlined portion of the legal text above):
Each adjustment of status application approved = One preference visa from specific category for that year

The narrative is not exempting dependents from numerical count. The narrative is rather suggesting to count 1 EB visa for one family (which has the same end-affect of exempting dependents). However, any discussion of how the visa numbers ought to be counted must take into consideration sub-section 1255(b) which is the very relevant section to this debate. This narrative does not mention or acknowledge existence of 1255(b), which is why we disagree with the validity of this suggestion.

Hope this is helpful. Feel free to provide legal basis to discredit interpretation of 1255(b) in the context of this suggestion and we will evaluate if your argument is valid.

In the end, we are saying that we believe that this is not a valid argument and the suggestion is not credible. This is totally different from what some immature folks might interpret this response as if "IV is against EB3-I". Outrageous non-credible suggestions is not the way to successful outcome with Administrative fixes. Just because someone can imagine an idea, doesn't mean it is within the existing law.

IV is your best friend if you are in favor of any real credible sincere effort to resolve backlog.

Administrator2
07-20-2014, 09:31 AM
Dallasblue,

Please provide the link to the source (giving credit) if you copy from another site. If you don't provide the link to the source page, it amounts to plagiarism and we will be forced to delete the post.

DallasBlue
07-21-2014, 01:08 AM
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45650253/The-Tyranny-of-Priority-Dates-by-Gary-Endelman-and-Cyrus-D-Mehta-3-25-10

This comes from cyrus mehta and Gary Endelman.

rajesprasad
07-21-2014, 12:44 PM
I will not get into a debate with the IV leaders on the value of my post(s). It is of no value.

But I wanted to convey the message that this possibility of changing the way the derivatives are counted can be a big game changer for all. It will reduce the backlog so much faster that within no time even the need for an organization like IV may go away and we could all sleep well. So, if there are others who are giving a fight for this, we should try our best in supporting them, rather than appropriating the role of the Attorney General and deciding that it is not worth a try. If will not ask for it then it will weaken our fight to make this possibility into a reality.

IV needs to show that you are doing your all on this agenda item. It is really big for EB3-I. Not trying on this will be very demoralizing!

Thanks
Rajesh

sukhwinderd
07-21-2014, 04:33 PM
why does GC number comes out of FB quota when a EB green card holder files for dependents, whereas same number comes out of EB category when a non GC holder files for them.

DallasBlue
07-21-2014, 05:32 PM
For Diversity lottery visa , the dependents/derivatives are not counted for the 50k quota they have, while EB dependents are counted against EB quota. HOW SAD :-|(

DallasBlue
07-21-2014, 05:45 PM
source: http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2013/03/the-way-we-count.html



Most Americans, including virtually all policy makers, would be surprised to learn that the majority of green cards awarded each fiscal year go not to the principal aliens themselves but to dependent family members, thus reducing even further permanent migration to the United States. In fact, as the waiting lines over the past decade have grown ever longer, this pattern has become more pronounced. A quick overview of green card distribution during the first decade of the 21st century quickly makes this evident. Let us take employment based migration in the employment-based first preference (EB-1) category as our data sample. In 2000, there were 5,631 new arrivals under the EB-1, 2,241 went to the principal vs. 3,390 to family members. This means that family members accounted for 58.67% of EB-1. In 2012, there were 1,517 new arrivals under the EB-1. 516 went to the principal & 1001 to family members. This means that family members accounted for 65.98% under the EB-1. Things are getting worse.

...

If the Executive wanted to reinterpret INA § 203(d), there is sufficient “constructive ambiguity” here too for it do so without the need for Congress to sanction it. We have explained this in our prior article, Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs With A Stroke Of A Pen, http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm. If this happened, the EB and FB preferences could instantly become “current.” The backlogs would disappear. The USCIS might even have to build a new Service Center! But we do not want to end on such optimism and throw all caution to the winds.. Thus, we propose a simple technical fix in Congress, which is to exclude family members from the FB and EB quotas. We do not see why this cannot be accomplished as there is already a pedigree for such a legislative fix. The proposed wording to INA 203(d) would be a simple add on to the current text, such as: “All family members, including the principal alien applicant, shall be counted as one unit for purposes of INA 201(c) and 201(d) limitations. They shall not be counted on an individual basis.” Not only did Congress try to remove family members in IMMACT90, but also attempted to do so in S. 2611, which was passed by the Senate in 2006. Section 501(b) of S. 2611 would have modified INA § 201(d)(2)(A) to exempt family from being counted in EB cases. The EB and FB numbers ought not to be held hostage to the number of family members each principal beneficiary brings with him or her. Nor should family members be held hostage to the quotas. We have often seen the principal beneficiary being granted permanent residency, but the derivative family members being left out, when there were not sufficient visa numbers under the preference category during that given year. If all family members are counted as one unit, such needless separation of family members will never happen again.

Administrator2
07-21-2014, 07:57 PM
I will not get into a debate with the IV leaders on the value of my post(s). It is of no value.

But I wanted to convey the message that this possibility of changing the way the derivatives are counted can be a big game changer for all. It will reduce the backlog so much faster that within no time even the need for an organization like IV may go away and we could all sleep well. So, if there are others who are giving a fight for this, we should try our best in supporting them, rather than appropriating the role of the Attorney General and deciding that it is not worth a try. If will not ask for it then it will weaken our fight to make this possibility into a reality.

IV needs to show that you are doing your all on this agenda item. It is really big for EB3-I. Not trying on this will be very demoralizing!

Thanks
Rajesh


Blind faith means no faith. Blindly following someone's opinion without exploring facts can never achieve anything good. We knew some people (as indicated in your post) will read our post to imply that "IV is against this provision". Looking at your response, it feels like I am wasting my time sharing facts and asking you to help counter the relevant section of the existing law.

There are a million life changing things. You know what else will be life changing, all of us winning lottery of $100 million. Why not just ask for winning lottery. Look, just because someone wrote their opinion, doesn't mean much. It is just their opinion. Its not their fault for writing their opinion. But it is your fault if you cannot see through facts over fiction and if you cannot read what we are saying i.e. give us argument to counter section 1255(b). Rather than sticking to your line in telling us how important this suggestion is, why don't you give valid arguments and how 1255(b) is not relevant. Without valid argument, this is not is even a suggestion, just as winning a lottery of $100 million, although life changing, is not a real suggestion.

Another idea that will be life changing will be increasing green card quota to 500,000. Why not just ask the President to increase the quota to a million, that would be game changer too, would it not? But it will be AGAINST the existing law, and thus WILL NOT happen as Admin fix, just as this suggestion for counting 1 EB visa for 1 family.

When I am asking for your input and suggestions, try writing intellectually honest response. Right now your input is mostly about calling names and bad/demonic consequences if we somehow don't agree with you.

Who do you think is working on this and who should IV support? Can you name anyone working on this fiction? You saw one blog post and you seem to imply that the world is working on this idea and IV is against it, which I find funny and absurd both at the same time.

Rather than incoherently ranting, can you please stay on the subject and answer this after reading 1255 (a) & 1255 (b) - how can 1 EB visa be more than 1 person (unless one can have more than 1 person on the same adjustment of status, which is not possible)? What part of my explanation earlier do you not understand? Can you not see that it is codified in the law how each visa is to be counted when adjustment of status application is approved? And if you help us understand this, we will be more than happy to run this again by who's who on this subject.

IV doesn't have to show anything. Like it or not, we are in for real solution that is possible, rather than just making a show. If facts are on our side, we will absolutely assure you that we will not leave any stone unturned, but if it is not per the existing law, what good is showing support. Showing support for unreasonable ask makes us unreasonable, and no one wants to work with unreasonable folks. Sorry friend, we do not show or pretend, never have, never will. This is serous issue to us and we mean serious real fix.

Administrator2
07-21-2014, 08:04 PM
For Diversity lottery visa , the dependents/derivatives are not counted for the 50k quota they have, while EB dependents are counted against EB quota. HOW SAD :-|(

Are you suggesting that law is not followed when allocating Diversity visa, or, are you saying law is not followed when allocating EB visas?

Look, we don't think this idea is credible. So why be sad or shed tears over something that never was.

I suggest think positive and look for other ideas. We have said this before, will repeat again, provide us credible ideas that are within the law and we will take your idea to the decision makers.

Administrator2
07-21-2014, 08:07 PM
source: The Insightful Immigration Blog – Commentaries on Immigration Policy, Cases and Trends: THE WAY WE COUNT (http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2013/03/the-way-we-count.html)



Most Americans, including virtually all policy makers, would be surprised to learn that the majority of green cards awarded each fiscal year go not to the principal aliens themselves but to dependent family members, thus reducing even further permanent migration to the United States. In fact, as the waiting lines over the past decade have grown ever longer, this pattern has become more pronounced. A quick overview of green card distribution during the first decade of the 21st century quickly makes this evident. Let us take employment based migration in the employment-based first preference (EB-1) category as our data sample. In 2000, there were 5,631 new arrivals under the EB-1, 2,241 went to the principal vs. 3,390 to family members. This means that family members accounted for 58.67% of EB-1. In 2012, there were 1,517 new arrivals under the EB-1. 516 went to the principal & 1001 to family members. This means that family members accounted for 65.98% under the EB-1. Things are getting worse.

...

If the Executive wanted to reinterpret INA § 203(d), there is sufficient “constructive ambiguity” here too for it do so without the need for Congress to sanction it. We have explained this in our prior article, Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs With A Stroke Of A Pen, ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm). If this happened, the EB and FB preferences could instantly become “current.” The backlogs would disappear. The USCIS might even have to build a new Service Center! But we do not want to end on such optimism and throw all caution to the winds.. Thus, we propose a simple technical fix in Congress, which is to exclude family members from the FB and EB quotas. We do not see why this cannot be accomplished as there is already a pedigree for such a legislative fix. The proposed wording to INA 203(d) would be a simple add on to the current text, such as: “All family members, including the principal alien applicant, shall be counted as one unit for purposes of INA 201(c) and 201(d) limitations. They shall not be counted on an individual basis.” Not only did Congress try to remove family members in IMMACT90, but also attempted to do so in S. 2611, which was passed by the Senate in 2006. Section 501(b) of S. 2611 would have modified INA § 201(d)(2)(A) to exempt family from being counted in EB cases. The EB and FB numbers ought not to be held hostage to the number of family members each principal beneficiary brings with him or her. Nor should family members be held hostage to the quotas. We have often seen the principal beneficiary being granted permanent residency, but the derivative family members being left out, when there were not sufficient visa numbers under the preference category during that given year. If all family members are counted as one unit, such needless separation of family members will never happen again.

We don't believe that presentation style is an issue. The issue is - ask is not within the existing law. Again, this presentation skips mentioning or referencing 1255(b). So it doesn't do any good.

StarSun
07-22-2014, 10:18 AM
Thus, we propose a simple technical fix in Congress, which is to exclude family members from the FB and EB quotas. We do not see why this cannot be accomplished as there is already a pedigree for such a legislative fix..

The Firm is writing about a legislative fix, a technical fix by Congress...... However, when the writing begins with a note - "It can be done by the stroke of a pen by the president," they are just misleading..........

Secondly, counting all dependents as a single unit of the primary applicant, as the article says, was included in Senate bill S. 2611...........indicating it is a Legislative fix.........

Whether members believe it or not, IV has weighed every option (including this one), and many more.

We have an organization that is willing to fight for us (Employment based immigrants), and it cannot possibly differentiate between any EB categories. IV has weighed all possible options, and is working day in and out to fix this problem. Lets get behind the organization and collectively work to get the relief needed (temporary and permanent fix). There are too many moving parts in the legislative and executive branch. When there are challenges that are hard to overcome, and beyond our control, any infighting will make it harder to accomplish...........

There are many law firms that provide advice with a disclaimer. No law firm has lobbied Congress for the very advice they give. It is just a blog.

source: The Insightful Immigration Blog – Commentaries on Immigration Policy, Cases and Trends: THE WAY WE COUNT (http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2013/03/the-way-we-count.html)

Most Americans, including virtually all policy makers, would be surprised to learn that the majority of green cards awarded each fiscal year go not to the principal aliens themselves but to dependent family members, thus reducing even further permanent migration to the United States. In fact, as the waiting lines over the past decade have grown ever longer, this pattern has become more pronounced. A quick overview of green card distribution during the first decade of the 21st century quickly makes this evident. Let us take employment based migration in the employment-based first preference (EB-1) category as our data sample. In 2000, there were 5,631 new arrivals under the EB-1, 2,241 went to the principal vs. 3,390 to family members. This means that family members accounted for 58.67% of EB-1. In 2012, there were 1,517 new arrivals under the EB-1. 516 went to the principal & 1001 to family members. This means that family members accounted for 65.98% under the EB-1. Things are getting worse.

...

If the Executive wanted to reinterpret INA § 203(d), there is sufficient “constructive ambiguity” here too for it do so without the need for Congress to sanction it. We have explained this in our prior article, Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs With A Stroke Of A Pen, ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm). If this happened, the EB and FB preferences could instantly become “current.” The backlogs would disappear. The USCIS might even have to build a new Service Center! But we do not want to end on such optimism and throw all caution to the winds.. Thus, we propose a simple technical fix in Congress, which is to exclude family members from the FB and EB quotas. We do not see why this cannot be accomplished as there is already a pedigree for such a legislative fix. The proposed wording to INA 203(d) would be a simple add on to the current text, such as: “All family members, including the principal alien applicant, shall be counted as one unit for purposes of INA 201(c) and 201(d) limitations. They shall not be counted on an individual basis.” Not only did Congress try to remove family members in IMMACT90, but also attempted to do so in S. 2611, which was passed by the Senate in 2006. Section 501(b) of S. 2611 would have modified INA § 201(d)(2)(A) to exempt family from being counted in EB cases. The EB and FB numbers ought not to be held hostage to the number of family members each principal beneficiary brings with him or her. Nor should family members be held hostage to the quotas. We have often seen the principal beneficiary being granted permanent residency, but the derivative family members being left out, when there were not sufficient visa numbers under the preference category during that given year. If all family members are counted as one unit, such needless separation of family members will never happen again.

sukhwinderd
07-22-2014, 10:54 AM
counting family as 1, is effectively increasing green cards, which is probably the most difficult thing to do. but taking GC number out of family quota for dependents maybe little easier than that. not sure if that option has been explored, and if it will be executive or legislative fix.
and it will keep diversity intact, as intended. i know there are technical issues, as far as different priority dates for EB, FB queues (primary vs dependents getting GC at different times), but those can be discussed, if there is a possibility of such option going anywhere.

Administrator2
07-22-2014, 01:07 PM
counting family as 1, is effectively increasing green cards, which is probably the most difficult thing to do. but taking GC number out of family quota for dependents maybe little easier than that. not sure if that option has been explored, and if it will be executive or legislative fix.
and it will keep diversity intact, as intended. i know there are technical issues, as far as different priority dates for EB, FB queues (primary vs dependents getting GC at different times), but those can be discussed, if there is a possibility of such option going anywhere.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for admin fix to allocate visa numbers to EB from Family based or Diversity. You probably have no idea for the amount of support for family based immigration, which is for family members of US citizens. You might be surprised but a lot of lawmakers (because of their constituents) support FB over EB. This idea will not just defy the law, but it will also defy the politics of the issue.

So to put it lightly, it is not just difficult, but IMPOSSIBLE to take GC number out of family quota for EB dependents. Hopefully, that will settle this idea and we don't have to go back-and-forth about this, like we had to go back-and-forth over the idea of exempting dependents from EB category.

Administrator2
07-22-2014, 01:16 PM
....
Prior to IMMACT 90,[4] which took effect on October 1, 1991, the start of FY 1992, family members were counted against the cap but there was no explicit provision as in current INA § 203(d) granting them the same visa and “green card” status as the principal alien family member. What was the purpose then of inserting INA § 203(d)? §101(b)(3) of the House version of IMMACT 90 amended INA § 201(b) to provide that an alien “who is provided immigrant status under INA § 203(d) as the spouse or child of an immigrant under INA 203(b)” would be among the other classes not subject to numerical limitation.[5] Take a look at the Conference Report that accompanied S. 358, IMMACT 90. In the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference at page 121 under the title “Employment Based Immigration” we read the following:

The House amendment allocated 65,000 employment-based visas during the Fiscal Years 1992-96 and 75,000 thereafter not including numerically exempt derivative spouses and children… (emphasis added)[6]
Curiously, there is no explicit mention or discussion of what became of INA § 203(d) in the Conference Report. We next look at House Report No. 101-723 that accompanied House passage of HR 4300 on October 3, 1990. S. 358 passed in lieu of HR 4300 after its language was amended to contain much of the text of the House bill. Under the proposed HR 4300, the 54, 000 visas that were then allocated under the employment-based preference would have been capped at 75,000 principals. Those family members accompanying or following to join were not included in this cap.[7] Candor compels us to admit that the House exemption for derivatives was removed in Conference. Ultimately, Congress enacted INA 201(d) which set a numerical limit of 140,000 for EB immigrants but counting family under that expanded cap. If the House had its way, IMMACT 90 would have had a lower numerical limit of 75,000 EB numbers, but, since family members were not counted, the actual number of EB immigrants would have been higher than 140,000.[8] However, it must be remembered that the House’s intent to exclude family members only applied to the EB not Family quota.

Despite the legislative history cutting against us, it still remains a mystery as to why INA §203(d) was enacted. There was no need to do so since family members were counted in the pre-IMMACT 90 quotas.

.....


This paragraph and narrative doesn't appear to be correct. There is sufficient evidence to suggest the intent of the Senate when IMMACT was under consideration, the bill that increased green card numbers back in 1989.

During the Senate IMMACT debates (in 1989) Senator Specter expressed the understanding that spouses will continue to be counted in his remarks in support of an amendment increasing the employment-based immigrant visa cap by 30,000 are below:

“Mr. President, the experience has demonstrated that there is a significant demand for more business visas. More than half of the current 54,000 business visas are used for family dependents. I do not quarrel with that allocation. But the result is that less than 25,000 visas actually go to the workers.”

Source: 135 Cong. Rec. S7858-02 (July 10, 1989).

Senator Specter then introduced into the record a letter from the Chamber of Commerce supporting the amendment to increase employment-based immigrant visa cap. Interestingly, the letter highlights the fact that dependents will continue to count against the employment-based cap as evidence of the diminished impact of the increase on the U.S. labor market:

“The Specter/DeConcini amendment will propose only a very modest increase (30,000 visas) in the employer-sponsored immigration categories. It may be expected that approximately half the increase will be used by family members of principal employee-immigrants. Thus, the amendment will permit only an additional 15,000-20,000 employer-sponsored immigrants. This small number, together with the fact that these immigrants cannot be sponsored unless the Department of Labor has certified that their skills are not available in the U.S., guarantees that there will be no significant adverse impact on the U.S. labor market. In fact, the labor market impact will be positive because these needed skills enhance productivity and create employment.”

Source: 135 Cong. Rec. S7858-02 (July 10, 1989).

This if from Congressional record which is set in stone and cannot be changed.

So it is not true that Congressional intent was not to count dependents in EB, or, if there is any ambiguity around counting dependents. Moreover, the law, section 1255(b) seals the fate of this suggestion without a doubt.

We would have been the first one jumping over this if this were possible. But the fact is, this admin fix is not possible per the existing law.

Now, hopefully, this will settle it. And without telling us again how much game changer this could be, or, this is "easier" or "low hanging fruit", can we please start talking about other ideas that some of you may have.

sukhwinderd
07-22-2014, 01:24 PM
for the info.


There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for admin fix to allocate visa numbers to EB from Family based or Diversity. You probably have no idea for the amount of support for family based immigration, which is for family members of US citizens. You might be surprised but a lot of lawmakers (because of their constituents) support FB over EB. This idea will not just defy the law, but it will also defy the politics of the issue.

So to put it lightly, it is not just difficult, but IMPOSSIBLE to take GC number out of family quota for EB dependents. Hopefully, that will settle this idea and we don't have to go back-and-forth about this, like we had to go back-and-forth over the idea of exempting dependents from EB category.

DallasBlue
07-22-2014, 01:47 PM
For Diversity lottery visa , the dependents/derivatives are not counted for the 50k quota they have, while EB dependents are counted against EB quota.


Are you suggesting that law is not followed when allocating Diversity visa, or, are you saying law is not followed when allocating EB visas?



The narrative is not exempting dependents from numerical count. The narrative is rather suggesting to count 1 EB visa for one family (which has the same end-affect of exempting dependents). However, any discussion of how the visa numbers ought to be counted must take into consideration sub-section 1255(b) which is the very relevant section to this debate. This narrative does not mention or acknowledge existence of 1255(b), which is why we disagree with the validity of this suggestion.

interpretation and implementation looks different in the lottery and EB visa issuance was what 'was trying to highlight. In Lottery visas the dependents are not counted against their quota of 50K, the whole family is counted for 1 visa.

Administrator2
07-22-2014, 02:26 PM
interpretation and implementation looks different in the lottery and EB visa issuance was what 'was trying to highlight. In Lottery visas the dependents are not counted against their quota of 50K, the whole family is counted for 1 visa.

Ok, Thanks for clarifying. The implementation in both EB and Diversity category is as per the existing law.

yokel
07-22-2014, 09:12 PM
According to INA 245(a) [8 USC 1255(a)]

(a) Status as person admitted for permanent residence on application and eligibility for immigrant visa
The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,
(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.

Administrator2
07-22-2014, 10:24 PM
According to INA 245(a) [8 USC 1255(a)]

(a) Status as person admitted for permanent residence on application and eligibility for immigrant visa
The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,
(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.


You seem to know how it works, what do you think?

yokel
07-23-2014, 06:48 AM
I am not an expert, but the law seems to pretty clear to not allow that. This interpretation came up in a discussion on another forum and if I understand correct, IV seems to be proposing this as a fix, I wanted to make u folks aware in case you didn't know. Anyway, my suggestion is for parole in place on approval of I-140, similar to DACA.

yokel
07-23-2014, 07:28 AM
My mistake, I meant parole in place similar to the relief given to military families.
I am not an expert, but the law seems to pretty clear to not allow that. This interpretation came up in a discussion on another forum and if I understand correct, IV seems to be proposing this as a fix, I wanted to make u folks aware in case you didn't know. Anyway, my suggestion is for parole in place on approval of I-140, similar to DACA.

eastindia
07-23-2014, 08:28 AM
I am not an expert, but the law seems to pretty clear to not allow that. This interpretation came up in a discussion on another forum and if I understand correct, IV seems to be proposing this as a fix, I wanted to make u folks aware in case you didn't know. Anyway, my suggestion is for parole in place on approval of I-140, similar to DACA.

Here is what I object in your post.
What do you mean by 'you folks'? This means you do not consider yourself part of IV. No IV member who participates in IV will ever say that. And this is why you say 'wanted to make u folks aware in case you didn't know'. You are saying we folks in IV do not know anything. I have gone to advocacy days, volunteered and contributed. I have been an active ember. So I know we senior members know the laws. And IV core are better than many so called experts. You spend all your time on other forums and think IV is just another forum. If your folks on other forum are so intelligent why don't you ask them to get this admin fix for you?
I also object to IV leadership taking suggestions from folks who cannot even comprehend posts by IV and simply copy paste some legal gobbledygook and throw it at IV. Please take suggestions from people who have done something here instead of any Tom Dick who strolls here, blames IV for all their EB3 India troubles and then goes back to other forums to have fun with others wasting time on discussing like fools.

yokel
07-23-2014, 08:43 AM
Thanks for adding to the discussion. Since you seem to indicate that IV knows and has considered everything, I will stop posting. Thanks for the encouragement.

Here is what I object in your post.
What do you mean by 'you folks'? This means you do not consider yourself part of IV. No IV member who participates in IV will ever say that. And this is why you say 'wanted to make u folks aware in case you didn't know'. You are saying we folks in IV do not know anything. I have gone to advocacy days, volunteered and contributed. I have been an active ember. So I know we senior members know the laws. And IV core are better than many so called experts. You spend all your time on other forums and think IV is just another forum. If your folks on other forum are so intelligent why don't you ask them to get this admin fix for you?
I also object to IV leadership taking suggestions from folks who cannot even comprehend posts by IV and simply copy paste some legal gobbledygook and throw it at IV. Please take suggestions from people who have done something here instead of any Tom Dick who strolls here, blames IV for all their EB3 India troubles and then goes back to other forums to have fun with others wasting time on discussing like fools.

Administrator2
07-23-2014, 09:29 AM
I am not an expert, but the law seems to pretty clear to not allow that. This interpretation came up in a discussion on another forum and if I understand correct, IV seems to be proposing this as a fix, I wanted to make u folks aware in case you didn't know. Anyway, my suggestion is for parole in place on approval of I-140, similar to DACA.

You present valid argument. However, our suggestion to 'allow early submitting Adjustment of status application when visa number is not available' is not violating any law.

Please visit the following URL and click on PDF image to view the document:
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2010-0017-12336)

Then scroll to page 7 of the PDF document to read at our suggestion Recommendation #4. As you would see, our suggestion is more compliant with the existing law as compared to the present day implementation.

DallasBlue
07-23-2014, 11:23 AM
"established by the state" , Statutory interpretation vs literal interpretation. literal interpretation drawn out is sate govt. where as statutory or context meant it as authority/govt.

everywhere on every issue, there are lawsuits and discussions on this Statutory interpretation vs literal interpretation of the law.

So for lottery visa they count family towards 1 visa , while in EB all the dependents are counted.

why doesn't congress write what the intention and execution of the law is, when they pass a bill and stop all these law suits and execute as they want by playing with the words :-)

DallasBlue
07-23-2014, 11:25 AM
You present valid argument. However, our suggestion to 'allow early submitting Adjustment of status application when visa number is not available' is not violating any law.

Please visit the following URL and click on PDF image to view the document:
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2010-0017-12336)

Then scroll to page 7 of the PDF document to read at our suggestion Recommendation #4. As you would see, our suggestion is more compliant with the existing law as compared to the present day implementation.

hope this one is good non controversial provision, Hope this becomes reality and all 140 approved gets the EAD.

DallasBlue
07-23-2014, 11:34 AM
Aman, how controversial is , counting of time towards citizenship from the day the AOS is filed instead of GC approval day ?

this discussion came up last year here i think

sengs
07-24-2014, 02:26 PM
I cannot wait but thank the hard working folks at the Immigration Voice in advance to show us some hope when everything else has died. You guys have done an awesome job, and your perseverance is showing results. Never in my nightmares I ever thought the USCIS is going to offer any respite, let alone EAD to the H4s. Now I am even dreaming of getting an EAD for myself the I-40 NIW principal. Thanks again guys.

I was wondering, what are the next steps? When are they going to decide on the rule or the changes that have been suggested? Any idea? Weeks? Months? Years? Can we as IV supporters do anything else right now?

DallasBlue
07-25-2014, 05:22 PM
How about counting of time towards citizenship from the I-485 filing date instead of I-485 approval date for EB?

Administrator2
07-25-2014, 06:55 PM
How about counting of time towards citizenship from the I-485 filing date instead of I-485 approval date for EB?

Which section of the existing law supports this idea? It will help if you quote and relevant section of INA when giving suggestion. If you make an effort, you will easily find the relevant subsection, and then we will not have respond to all of the thoughts.

DallasBlue
08-01-2014, 08:35 PM
8 U.S. Code § 1427 - Requirements of naturalization

(a) Residence
No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be naturalized unless such applicant,
(1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months,

looks like the law sates that "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence" ,
can it not be interpreted as once the EAD/AP is issued, EB guys are lawfully permitted ?

just taking a blind swing, as this is not so important as other things , like filing 485 when date is not current. so please don't get stressed on it, this was discussed few years back here on this IV forums so brought it up. long shot or no shot

Looks like stage is set by GOP for Obama to act for parole-in-place (extending DACA) immigration EO. Lets wait and watch for what CompeteAmerica and USchamber got in

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/obama-gop-border-immigration-109651.html?hp=t3_3

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/obama-gop-border-immigration-109651.html?hp=t3_3

waitingnwaiting
08-01-2014, 11:20 PM
looks like the law sates that "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence" ,
can it not be interpreted as once the EAD/AP is issued, EB guys are lawfully permitted ?

just taking a blind swing, as this is not so important as other things , like filing 485 when date is not current. so please don't get stressed on it, this was discussed few years back here on this IV forums so brought it up. long shot or no shot

Looks like stage is set by GOP for Obama to act for parole-in-place (extending DACA) immigration EO. Lets wait and watch for what CompeteAmerica and USchamber got in

Obama blasts GOP on immigration - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/obama-gop-border-immigration-109651.html?hp=t3_3)

Obama blasts GOP on immigration - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/obama-gop-border-immigration-109651.html?hp=t3_3)

Dude you do not know but IV is an important and very active member on the leaderboard of Compete America. Check their website if you do not trust me. And IV also talks with chambers etc. Only people who never participate in advocacy days do not know this. You need to get out of your computer screen and travel sometime to the national capital for IV work. You will learn a lot.

sengs
08-12-2014, 01:06 PM
Any idea or hints from IV regarding when, or if at all the proposed modifications are going to be enacted? Thanks-