PDA

View Full Version : USCIS Internal Memo about EAD for I140 from June 2015


Pages : [1] 2

Administrator2
10-27-2015, 11:56 AM
Here is the link to the USCIS Internal Memo from June 2015 about EAD for I140. The work is underway and we expect the rule to come out in public for comments on/around 15th November.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwcu66m3vnj9nta/USCIS_Memo_for_EAD_for_I140_June2015.pdf?dl=0

There is also background activity whereby immigration lawyers and companies are working very hard to derail EAD for I140 fix. They are trying all sorts of ways to derail or water down this fix that we have worked for years.

Immigration lawyers and companies want this fix to be only applied to those with 'Extraordinary Circumstances' i.e. where employee can show economic hardship, exploitation by employer etc. They are trying to water down so no more than 600 people in an year would be able to benefit from this fix.

We ask that you NOT engage in any online petitions. Online petitions are distraction and diversion from real effort. Often times these petitions are started by immigration lawyers as diversion from real advocacy. Online petitions severely hurt our efforts. Again, please DO NOT engage in online petitions.

We will soon publish action items and we ask you to actively participate in these actions items.

Here is the link to FB Post for this information/announcement.
https://www.facebook.com/ImmigrationVoice/posts/1025332340866323

Thank you

Team IV

gopal008
10-27-2015, 12:12 PM
Thanks admin. Is there a guesstimate when this might become a rule.

Administrator2
10-27-2015, 12:14 PM
Thanks admin. Is there a guesstimate when this might become a rule.

Around Nov 15th is not the time frame for when it will become rule. This is the time frame when this rule will come out for comments. Then the proposed rule will have to go through its life cycle before the final rule is published and implemented.

But more importantly, please note the opposition from Immigration lawyers and companies, who want to kill or water down this fix.

vikidisi
10-27-2015, 12:16 PM
I think there were lot of anxieties and name calling about why IV was quiet since the flower campaign. Hope this proves that IV is is quietly working in the background. Which is where it matters. There is lots going on and most have no idea on how these agreements in fixes and deals are done. Stand by us. Lots of action items coming up.

bcci
10-27-2015, 12:17 PM
Around Nov 15th is not the time frame for when it will become rule. This is the time frame when this rule will come out for comments. Then the proposed rule will have to go through its life cycle before the final rule is published and implemented.

But more importantly, please note the opposition from Immigration lawyers and companies, who want to kill or water down this fix.

Thanks, Admin. VB reversal is still a hope or watered down because of that so called dead lawsuit? I appreciate your response.

RH_93
10-27-2015, 12:19 PM
Thanks, Admin. VB reversal is still a hope or watered down because of that so called dead lawsuit? I appreciate your response.

Thank you very much for the update !!!! Timely indeed. One question - The document says -pre-decisional and not for distribution. Why is this then being distributed on a public forum?

rahdirs
10-27-2015, 12:19 PM
SUPER!!!!
(btw..that FB link is dead now??)

stuckinline
10-27-2015, 12:20 PM
Damn Lawyers... :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Trying to screw us as usual :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

People need to stay away from all Lawyer organizations - they will just use us for their agenda.... :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

IMNotACommonMan
10-27-2015, 12:20 PM
There is also background activity whereby immigration lawyers and companies are working very hard to derail EAD for I140 fix. They are trying all sorts of ways to derail or water down this fix that we have worked for years.

Immigration lawyers and companies want this fix to be only applied to those with 'Extraordinary Circumstances' i.e. where employee can show economic hardship, exploitation by employer etc. They are trying to water down so no more than 600 people in an year would be able to benefit from this fix.


Very very very disturbing news, I was thinking with their current activity I.e. by creating a rights group etc they will understand our pain and will help the immgrants community get the rights they deserve.

I am out of my wits, what to say....

FrankUnderwood
10-27-2015, 12:21 PM
Immigration lawyers and companies want this fix to be only applied to those with 'Extraordinary Circumstances' i.e. where employee can show economic hardship, exploitation by employer etc. They are trying to water down so no more than 600 people in an year would be able to benefit from this fix.

These lawyers and their shady organizations are nothing but a front to their malicious intents of keeping us slaves. We need to stand up to them and make sure they fail. The lawyers and their waterboys are a moral disgrace to this planet.

IV should put out action items to publicly expose these b@$t@rds, aka the lawyers and their front organizations!

-FU

rahdirs
10-27-2015, 12:21 PM
SUPER!!!!
(btw..that FB link is dead now??)

(and its back up again!!)

BenCokila
10-27-2015, 12:23 PM
Seriously! Seriously! WTF is going on here! The stupidest minions of these demonish lawyers are trying to hack their own feet. It is shame that you even call them "high-skilled"!!!:mad::mad: All of these people must have faked their CVs to come to the US. With such low intelligence these people should get what they deserve !!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

Extreme hardship! What the F**k is extreme hardship! These lawyer sponsored organizations should be exposed to everyone for their low-skilled low-intelligent behavior for supporting their overlords who ask for thewse kind of clauses. These stupid people should be immediately self-deported before they ruin all our future!! :mad::mad::mad:

stuckinline
10-27-2015, 12:23 PM
There is also background activity whereby immigration lawyers and companies are working very hard to derail EAD for I140 fix. They are trying all sorts of ways to derail or water down this fix that we have worked for years.

Immigration lawyers and companies want this fix to be only applied to those with 'Extraordinary Circumstances' i.e. where employee can show economic hardship, exploitation by employer etc. They are trying to water down so no more than 600 people in an year would be able to benefit from this fix.



Is IV fighting this? Can you share some background? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

DMX17
10-27-2015, 12:25 PM
While I fully trust IV’s "water down" comment about how most lawyers/employers who stand to lose their upper hand will do everything to block or dilute this important fix, I think the people at large do not want to believe IV and will continue to follow the lead on petitions etc. For them, IV is just repeating the same old broken record and hence not trustworthy. They fail to understand that liking immigration lawyers for what service they provide (immigration applications and case handling) is different from liking them for the claim of doing the so-called advocacy for the betterment of immigrant’s life. These are two different things.

People - this one time, do something smart for yourself and follow IV lead. Please.

FrankUnderwood
10-27-2015, 12:26 PM
Is IV fighting this? Can you share some background? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

WTF WTF WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS DRIVING ME CRAAAAAAAAAAAAZYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!

We should do a dharna in front of the lawyer's homes to get the hell out of our lives.

-FU

greenappletx
10-27-2015, 12:28 PM
Admin, Thanks for the Info. That is really helpful.

This EAD includes AP as well? Also, do we need to wait for one year after I140 or they are considering immediate EAD after I140 as well?

As you said, they are submitting it for the comments around Nov 15th (I believe initial OMB approval) , do you know the tentative timeline to become rule and USCIS start accepting the applications? and lastly, once we get an EAD, do we still need to maintain H1B status?
Thanks again

rahdirs
10-27-2015, 12:33 PM
Q. Would all these options be posted for comments or just the one of them. The recommended one in the doc is Option 2.

deshpsj
10-27-2015, 12:35 PM
Thanks Admin for the update! We are on it! Awaiting action items to start actively working on it!

DMX17
10-27-2015, 12:50 PM
I think there were lot of anxieties and name calling about why IV was quiet since the flower campaign. Hope this proves that IV is is quietly working in the background. Which is where it matters. There is lots going on and most have no idea on how these agreements in fixes and deals are done. Stand by us. Lots of action items coming up.

I bet the name calling is and will still be going on! It's like no matter what IV does, people are just not able to see who their friends are.

It is one thing to not believe IV when IV says immigration lawyers/companies (they are one group in cahoots!) are working against this fix and it is another thing to actually trust the lawyers in believing they are helping with this fix. This is bad because, like Admin said, the scattered efforts are wasted.

Hope the immigrants (WE) can unite on this action item (and I am happy that a lawsuit cannot be filed for this one!).

phoenixwings
10-27-2015, 12:53 PM
EAD may only be granted to individuals who are in certain lawful nonimmigrant status, t.e.
excluding H-1Bs or L-lAs

I am worried after reading this in the memo. :( Does it mean only L1-Bs are counted?

Thanks
Shwetha

DMX17
10-27-2015, 01:02 PM
EAD may only be granted to individuals who are in certain lawful nonimmigrant status, t.e.
excluding H-1Bs or L-lAs

I am worried after reading this in the memo. :( Does it mean only L1-Bs are counted?

Thanks
Shwetha

It says Option 2 is the preferred option "EAD may only be granted to individuals who are lawfully present in the United States" That includes H-1B/L-1 etc.

essell
10-27-2015, 01:03 PM
Thank you very much for the update !!!! Timely indeed. One question - The document says -pre-decisional and not for distribution. Why is this then being distributed on a public forum?

Must be bcoz lawyers and employers are trying to screw up everything....

Cyrus Mehta had already indicated that Anti Immigrant Lawyers Associates are trying their best to block this effort or water down. Their lobbying organization had never wanted this to come out and so never asked in any letter for the 140 EAD.

vikidisi
10-27-2015, 01:04 PM
Must be bcoz lawyers and employers are trying to screw up everything....

Cyrus Mehta had already indicated that Anti Immigrant Lawyers Associates are trying their best to block this effort or water down. Their lobbying organization had never wanted this to come out and so never asked in any letter for the 140 EAD.

Yea - I am still waiting for a single statement from AILA supporting this fix.

phoenixwings
10-27-2015, 01:09 PM
It says Option 2 is the preferred option "EAD may only be granted to individuals who are lawfully present in the United States" That includes H-1B/L-1 etc.

Thanks! I saw that now. :)

FrankUnderwood
10-27-2015, 01:09 PM
Yea - I am still waiting for a single statement from AILA supporting this fix.

Anti immigrants lawyers association tried its best to delay this rule and now they are trying to kill it. ONLY 600 people can apply in an year??????


We should beat up AILA representatives and especially siskind who said that attacking AILA is attacking himself.......

-FU

vikastaneja
10-27-2015, 01:11 PM
Thanks for posting this update.
Is it going to be for people who have approved i140 from previous employer?

sengs
10-27-2015, 01:14 PM
It says Option 2 is the preferred option "EAD may only be granted to individuals who are lawfully present in the United States" That includes H-1B/L-1 etc.

What is the chance that option 4 will not be selected over Option 2? There is no guarantee, unless we speak up. Option 4 almost looks like an lawyers sponsored option.

hil3182
10-27-2015, 01:15 PM
Yea - I am still waiting for a single statement from AILA supporting this fix.
:D

Only those of us who have spent the last year - fending off AILA and the Employers from the commonsense I140-EAD fix truly understand the irony of that statement.

AILA and the Employers are not done attacking the rule yet.

Rest of you, please keep your fingers crossed and follow Action Items religiously - even if they require you to step out of your comfort zone. The last few years (especially the last few months) has been a high-wire knife fight between IV and the usual suspects that has left a lot of us on edge. If you want your freedom, you will have to join us in fighting for it.

DMX17
10-27-2015, 01:19 PM
What is the chance that option 4 will not be selected over Option 2? There is no guarantee, unless we speak up. Option 4 almost looks like an lawyers sponsored option.

Yeah. Who came up with this option and the mention of "fear of litigation"?

sengs
10-27-2015, 01:21 PM
Yeah. Who came up with this option and the mention of "fear of litigation"?

Of course the friendly lawyers.

DMX17
10-27-2015, 01:42 PM
If Option 4 is the chosen, that would be another broken promise by the WH. As the intent was clearly to help people like us who have approved immigrant petitions.

Although, the money argument if correct, is not something that we can take lightly.

FrankUnderwood
10-27-2015, 01:42 PM
Of course the friendly lawyers.

I don't think the AILA (anti immigrants lawyers association) are our friends. They have been trying to water down this rule for months now.

Are they the ones who have asked USCIS to not include AP in this document? What use is an EAD without AP?

The lawyers need to give us answers why they did it.

-FU

rupen
10-27-2015, 01:46 PM
Here is the link to the USCIS Internal Memo from June 2015 about EAD for I140. The work is underway and we expect the rule to come out in public for comments on/around 15th November.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwcu66m3vnj9nta/USCIS_Memo_for_EAD_for_I140_June2015.pdf?dl=0

There is also background activity whereby immigration lawyers and companies are working very hard to derail EAD for I140 fix. They are trying all sorts of ways to derail or water down this fix that we have worked for years.

Immigration lawyers and companies want this fix to be only applied to those with 'Extraordinary Circumstances' i.e. where employee can show economic hardship, exploitation by employer etc. They are trying to water down so no more than 600 people in an year would be able to benefit from this fix.

We ask that you NOT engage in any online petitions. Online petitions are distraction and diversion from real effort. Often times these petitions are started by immigration lawyers as diversion from real advocacy. Online petitions severely hurt our efforts. Again, please DO NOT engage in online petitions.

We will soon publish action items and we ask you to actively participate in these actions items.

Here is the link to FB Post for this information/announcement.
https://www.facebook.com/ImmigrationVoice/posts/1025332340866323

Thank you

Team IV

Well put

rupen
10-27-2015, 01:49 PM
If Option 4 is the chosen, that would be another broken promise by the WH. As the intent was clearly to help people like us who have approved immigrant petitions.

Although, the money argument if correct, is not something that we can take lightly.

I fall to understand all options. Rule is about i140 eas but all options go much beyond that ?

sengs
10-27-2015, 01:52 PM
Yes. Looking at the documents, it is clear that AP is not included. Nothing hidden in fine lines too.

Those people who come here and thump lawyers' chest should answer this question. They know better from their sources. They are the ones who mentioned in their forums that they are happy with EAD only. They will get what they wanted.

DMX17
10-27-2015, 02:01 PM
Did IV attend this "Regulation Retreat"? Also, since this is from June, is there anything changed as far as the options or the likely outcome we expect? If anything, that can be shared publicly, please let us know to help with this anxiety.

Must say in Option 4, the reasoning is contractory and sounds very much like that lawyer who spoke in the USCIS call.

Nonsense E.g. Under Pros, Bullet # 2 says we need to have as many H-1B filed so that we can use the fees and fund NSF etc. But Bullet # 3 comes right back and says that the ultimate goal is to ensure using the fees we train our people and end H-1B program.

We are here after 15 years of AC21 and there is no sign of us leaving too.

rupen
10-27-2015, 02:03 PM
Yes. Looking at the documents, it is clear that AP is not included. Nothing hidden in fine lines too.

Those people who come here and thump lawyers' chest should answer this question. They know better from their sources. They are the ones who mentioned in their forums that they are happy with EAD only. They will get what they wanted.

This is not a detailed document. So, do not think have to jump to conclusion that there is no AP. I think AP will be there without that it is meaningless

GCTopDream
10-27-2015, 02:08 PM
How can people travel with only EAD?

BenCokila
10-27-2015, 02:12 PM
How can people travel with only EAD?

They cannot. And thats exactly what the lawyers want. I lost my money on the stupid lawsuit. I still believed them. Now it looks true that they are no good for immigrants at all.

DMX17
10-27-2015, 02:13 PM
This is not a detailed document. So, do not think have to jump to conclusion that there is no AP. I think AP will be there without that it is meaningless

I agree. This document just talks about which population to specifically include for this benefit. Option 1 is the least restrictive in that there is a chance undocumnted folks can get an I-140 approved and get EAD.

Option 4 is the lawyer/employer friendly version in that it keeps the cashflow coming in and employee retained.

stuckinline
10-27-2015, 02:14 PM
This is not a detailed document. So, do not think have to jump to conclusion that there is no AP. I think AP will be there without that it is meaningless

The VB modernization turned out to be meaningless... if they pick option 4, I140-EAD will also be meaningless...if there is no AP, it will be less meaningful...

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

LAWYERS!!!

harishps123
10-27-2015, 02:16 PM
I would sincerely hope that the administration understands the essential necessity of an immigrant to visit his home country or travel abroad for work. Thats why I believe AP is a somewhat implicit understanding.

stuckinline
10-27-2015, 02:25 PM
I would sincerely hope that the administration understands the essential necessity of an immigrant to visit his home country or travel abroad for work. Thats why I believe AP is a somewhat implicit understanding.

This administration has a history of self-goals... like with VB modernization... I think IV is trying to tell us I140-EAD is a done deal... but there is still room for sabotage... like Option 4 and "'Extraordinary Circumstances"

DMX17
10-27-2015, 02:30 PM
Option 3 excludes, parolees! WTF? That implies this option will not provide AP and the only benefit would be that one would not have to start the GC process again but, of couse, will have have to be on H-1B.

So option 3 is waterdown option.

Option 2 is the only one that we are expecting and that should come with an AP.

gopal008
10-27-2015, 02:31 PM
So the one year still applies for an approved petition.

Flyingcrow
10-27-2015, 02:31 PM
This administration has a history of self-goals... like with VB modernization... I think IV is trying to tell us I140-EAD is a done deal... but there is still room for sabotage... like Option 4 and "'Extraordinary Circumstances"

If you read the original post, it would be very well evident that IV is warning, how it can be watered down, and sabotaged. So kudos, you can keep your 007 hat aside.

Flyingcrow
10-27-2015, 02:33 PM
So the one year still applies for an approved petition.

Really after all that happened are you still cribbing about the one year? We can end up losing everything...so plz. Do not start this...

harishps123
10-27-2015, 02:34 PM
Well said. All that lawsuit did was antagonize the administration and DHS.. Killing them softly by sending them flowers is a better way to protest. At least they will feel bad for us...

gopal008
10-27-2015, 02:35 PM
Really after all that happened are you still cribbing about the one year? We can end up losing everything...so plz. Do not start this...

No cribbing at all. Just saying. I would be happy even if they put 2 years but grant EAD + AP.

BenCokila
10-27-2015, 02:36 PM
Well said. All that lawsuit did was antagonize the administration and DHS.. Killing them softly by sending them flowers is a better way to protest. At least they will feel bad for us...

I repent every penny I paid to the lawsuit. :mad::mad::(:(:(

Flyingcrow
10-27-2015, 02:38 PM
I remember how people were upset when CIR was approved in the senate in July 2013, that it will take an year more to get effective. Funny did they know, they got upset over nothing.

Similarly, many were upset how come dates only moved to 1 July 2011 and not much movement for Eb3. And we know what followed.

rupen
10-27-2015, 02:43 PM
I agree. This document just talks about which population to specifically include for this benefit. Option 1 is the least restrictive in that there is a chance undocumnted folks can get an I-140 approved and get EAD.

Option 4 is the lawyer/employer friendly version in that it keeps the cashflow coming in and employee retained.

None of the options make any sense to me. The initial part says rule is about i140ead and after that there is everything in the world except i140

stuckinline
10-27-2015, 03:03 PM
If you read the original post, it would be very well evident that IV is warning, how it can be watered down, and sabotaged. So kudos, you can keep your 007 hat aside.
there is no need to be upset at me...save it for the lawyers and company lobbyists...be prepared to fight :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

DMX17
10-27-2015, 03:25 PM
None of the options make any sense to me. The initial part says rule is about i140ead and after that there is everything in the world except i140

Rupen - all the options require that an I-140 is approved and it was approved at least 1 year ago.

Now this document is just addressing the questions that were raised at some "Retreat". This document just proves what kind of efforts may be undertaken in such meetings and nothing more. Yes, the draft rule appears to be in our favor as far as I see unless our friends are still at the retreat/working very hard.

The current draft regulation limits EAD eligibility to primary beneficiaries and their derivative family members with an 1-140 petition that has been approved for at least one year.1 The current draft regulation contemplates EAD eligibility for individuals who are in lawful nonimmigrant status at the time of filing the EAD application.

This paper addresses the question raised at the Regulations Retreat

The take home message for me is that there are people (lawyers and employers) out there asking such questions in an effort to raise doubts and fears. Presumably, there are also people who advocated option 1.

greyhair
10-27-2015, 03:36 PM
Siskind is posting against IV because IV is exposing immigration lawyers:

Greg Siskind @gsiskind
@mahajaydeep I love how @immivoice uses their post to bash immigration lawyers. It's one big reason IV's credibility has taken a big hit.

FrankUnderwood
10-27-2015, 03:37 PM
Siskind is posting against IV because IV is exposing immigration lawyers:

That is all siskind is capable of doing. After looting and raiding our people, he is working very hard with AILA (anti immigrants lawyers association) to sabotage EAD/AP fix and slander IV.

This guy needs to be sued.

gcseeker23
10-27-2015, 03:43 PM
None of the options make any sense to me. The initial part says rule is about i140ead and after that there is everything in the world except i140

Exactly Rupen, you just spoke my feelings here. This is a confusing memo. If this regulation is being explored for i140 EAD, i fail to understand how an unlawful immigrant can apply / benefit from this rule!
The requirement of approved i140 itself should narrow down the population that would benefit from this rule. :confused:

DMX17
10-27-2015, 03:55 PM
Exactly Rupen, you just spoke my feelings here. This is a confusing memo. If this regulation is being explored for i140 EAD, i fail to understand how an unlawful immigrant can apply / benefit from this rule!
The requirement of approved i140 itself should narrow down the population that would benefit from this rule. :confused:

Option 1 is pre-empting the future possibility. There are people who have been here long time and may qualify for "Other worker" category. Then apply for EAD based on approved I-140. They do not have an incentive right now, but with the new rule they will.

Hope this makes sense.

This memo just is deciding "Who is Elibilible" to apply.

stuckinline
10-27-2015, 04:25 PM
LOL looks like Greg just runs away when the questioning isn't from his usual servant's: https://twitter.com/gsiskind/status/659087925842419712

Administrator2
10-27-2015, 04:25 PM
Siskind is posting against IV because IV is exposing immigration lawyers:


Greg Siskind @gsiskind
@mahajaydeep I love how @immivoice uses their post to bash immigration lawyers. It's one big reason IV's credibility has taken a big hit.



Greg Siskind needs to decide what does he want. One day he is tweeting asking IV to put political pressure for VB reversal. Next day he questions our credibility.

Perhaps Greg needs to be reminded that the best defense is the truth. And what we are saying is true. He may not like it, he may even want to hide the truth, but we are telling everyone the truth about what is going on behind the scenes. We have seen that when it is difficult to bear the truth, Siskind likes to sling mud all round. Back in July, 2012, when Senator Grassley removed his hold on Per country limit bill (H.R.3012), which Siskind and lawyers did not want, Greg came out swinging against the minor amendment that Senator Grassley and Senator Schumer negotiated with agreement with companies, employees and IV. One might ask Siskind, if both Democrats and Republican lawmakers are fine, if employers are fine, if employees are fine, if immigrants are fine, Unions, NumbersUSA, Per-immigrant groups are all fine, THEN WHAT WAS SISKIND'S PROBLEM?

The way we see it, Siskind does not want backlog to be resolved. We believe that is the real reason why, Siskind and other immigration lawyers were jumping around with their objections to a minor amendment to H1B program between Senator Grassley and Senator Schumer back in July-2012. In the end the bill did not pass because of hold on the bill by Senator Sessions. But that event exposed the hypocrisy of Siskind and Immigration lawyers. Back then IV had Siskind on our Board, but we decided to kick him out of IV Board because the last thing we need is the people who say one thing and do something else.

Let me ask a simple question - Why do people want green card?
Because we ALL know that there is exploitation and insecurity when one doesn't have green card. We all know that we cannot live up to our full potential if we don't have green card, and that is why we want green card, ins't it?

Then have you EVER seen Siskind or any other immigration lawyers talk about exploitation of immigrants waiting for green cards? Well, the guy has the time to tweet and write/blog about everything under the Sun. Then why not talk about exploitation of skilled immigrants? Have you ever seen Siskind or other immigration lawyers talk about the exploitation of immigrants working at Disney or Southern California Edison? If anything, Siskind along with his other cronies (immigration lawyers) would not stop talking about increasing H1B visas. As an example - in a few days from now you will see SKILLS Visa Act introduced. That bill will increase H1Bs to around 195K without increasing green cards. According to calculations, that bill will increase the current backlog size from 1 million to 10 million. But when SKILLS Visa Act is introduced, you will probably see Siskind and his cronies jump up and down in support of bills that increase backlogs 10 times. Why? Because backlogs mean more business and money for immigration lawyers.

People who do not learn form their mistakes are destined to doom. Skilled Immigrants need to learn from their mistakes and no longer trust immigration lawyers. Immigration lawyers are in the business of making money, nothing wrong with that I suppose. But when they go to Congress, Immigration lawyers and their advocacy organization pretend to represent immigrants. But then fact is these immigration lawyers only represent themselves. Immigration Lawyers push for new laws to get new immigrants (because that means more business for them). They don't push for laws or regulations which will make it easier for immigrants to change jobs or not live with indenture servitude. That is the real reason you will not see AILA or immigration lawyers ask for EAD for I140 fix when commenting on regulations. Has anyone seen any immigration lawyers ask for EAD for I140 fix? Just name one lawyer or lawyer organization, just one?

To summarize, we have come to the conclusion that immigration lawyers are "Pro_immigration" meaning they want more immigrants because it gives them more business. At the same time, we believe that immigration lawyers are "Anti-immigrants" because they don't want and don't speak up for immigrants to get more rights. So in essence:

Immigration lawyers are Pro-Immigration but Anti-Immigrant

And for those who refuse to acknowledge this truth are living in fools paradise. As the saying goes - always be careful of the wolf in sheep skin. Be very careful about immigration lawyers. We keep things simple and honest. And we are never EVER scared to pick a fight. And if you want to find the truth yourself, please do this:

1.) Please find 1 immigration lawyer blog post that talks about exploitation of backlogged immigrants

2.) Please find 1 immigration lawyers that has a policy paper advocating for EAD for I140 fix, or any immigration lawyers that has posted comments on regulation.gov asking for EAD for I140 fix.


So you want to know what we think about Siskind. We think he is a hack and he screwed everyone in backlogs with his lawsuit. When he filed a lawsuit on DHS, he forced DHS to defend themselves. Now DHS is forced to dig their heels. How can DHS reverse VB back to Sept 9th, when Greg's lawsuit has forced DHS to take a firm stand that their reason to reverse VB was genuine? Lawsuit has pretty much killed any chance of getting Sept 9th VB. We know this is not what many people like to hear, but it is what it is. That is why its been said to choose your friends wisely. And that is why IV is no longer friends with Greg Siskind since July-2012, after we figured his true intentions during Per-country limits bill.

Greg seem to come out defending ALL immigration lawyers, as if no one knows what is going on in the real world. How many people reading this feel exploited or know someone who feels exploited by employer or immigration lawyers? Lets be honest, is there anyone who doesn't fall in that category? In the end - we rely on truth to win this fight. And evil designs of immigration lawyers and bad employers will not work in the end.

ramkia6
10-27-2015, 04:56 PM
I hope this info is not released by WH. If it is, I don't trust info.

--
Rama Krishna

DMX17
10-27-2015, 05:05 PM
Guys - I suggest we not ask AILA or others to come out in support of I-140 EAD/AP. Trust me, they will come out on twitter or blog and say "we fully support". They know how to handle PR on the twitter/internet and that will only hurt IV's credibility further. Just saying.

Then a repeat of history and accusations saying IV tends to take credit for other people's work.

Let's learn from their ways.

Administrator2
10-27-2015, 05:37 PM
The fix has made progress in-spite of OPPOSITION from immigration lawyers and companies. But there is a one small unknown group that is pushing for this fix. A group that Siskind says has lost credibility. Well, then, that group must be doing something right, isn't it?

Don't care for support of any immigration lawyers. They are hacks and they don't want immigrants to get rights, including the right to change employer. So it doesn't matter what they say publically, what matters is, what they do behind the scenes. And we will be there to share with everyone what is happening behind the scenes. So they cannot say one thing in public and do something else behind the scenes. That is the real reason people like Siskind hate IV. If he would be a good person, he would side with immigrants to fight with the clan of immigration lawyers. But has made a conscious decision to choose the clan. If that is his choice, then we have no idea why he keeps pretending to be in pro-immigrant. He may be for the cases he has taken over. But when it comes to policy matters, we believe immigration lawyers are anti-immigrants because they DO NOT want immigrants to get the rights. That is indisputable truth.

How many times have you AILA or immigration lawyers blog or ask for fixes that will get copies of green card petition for skilled immigrants. How many times have you seen lawyers acknowledge exploitation of EB immigrants or speak against exploitation. How many times have you seen immigration lawyers speak up for increasing green cards without increasing H1/L1? How many times have you seen immigration lawyers talk about removing per country limits in EB category without any strings?

These are all fair questions. And the answer to these questions can help anyone find their own path about the true anti-immigrant nature of immigration lawyers who only want new immigrants to be brought into the country so they can get more business. And if that is the motivation and if that is how it is, then why not say it as it is?

We fail to understand this obsession of Siskind and others like him to be seen as good guys without actually speaking up against exploitation of skilled immigrants. How can he speak against exploitation if he refuse to acknowledge that exploitation of skilled immigrants exist. Dammit why can't we acknowledge what already is.

sean231
10-27-2015, 05:47 PM
Few points that are confusing:
1. This internal memo mentions "current draft regulation" which seems to suggest that the draft was already in place (in June....still not submitted for OMB review)
2. The options seem to be the musings of a group of people from the Office of Policy & Strategy of USCIS at some Regulation Retreat
3. The cons mentioned.......they seem to be overlapping; someone did a bad job of copy/paste when typing this document out

I'm confused if this is to show that USCIS is / was working on this regulation or if these will be points that they are considering (for the past 5 months) and now seem to have a regulation coming out soon???

Hope the regulation gets sent to OMB for review soon and OMB blesses it sooner (maybe within a day as it did for some others)

DMX17
10-27-2015, 06:06 PM
Few points that are confusing:
1. This internal memo mentions "current draft regulation" which seems to suggest that the draft was already in place (in June....still not submitted for OMB review)
2. The options seem to be the musings of a group of people from the Office of Policy & Strategy of USCIS at some Regulation Retreat
3. The cons mentioned.......they seem to be overlapping; someone did a bad job of copy/paste when typing this document out

I'm confused if this is to show that USCIS is / was working on this regulation or if these will be points that they are considering (for the past 5 months) and now seem to have a regulation coming out soon???

Hope the regulation gets sent to OMB for review soon and OMB blesses it sooner (maybe within a day as it did for some others)

In my opinion, the draft rule (i.e. change in statutes) can be made easily but that is not all that is required. It is not as easy as they need to put a lot of effort in justifying the change and making sure they do not invite criticism when they publish the rule, as Hil and others have said. So a draft rule can be called a draft rule from Day 1. We know the content since May. I am sure they were not just thinking about only these points for the last 5 months as you said in your post.

Administrator2
10-27-2015, 06:32 PM
Few points that are confusing:
1. This internal memo mentions "current draft regulation" which seems to suggest that the draft was already in place (in June....still not submitted for OMB review)
2. The options seem to be the musings of a group of people from the Office of Policy & Strategy of USCIS at some Regulation Retreat
3. The cons mentioned.......they seem to be overlapping; someone did a bad job of copy/paste when typing this document out

I'm confused if this is to show that USCIS is / was working on this regulation or if these will be points that they are considering (for the past 5 months) and now seem to have a regulation coming out soon???

Hope the regulation gets sent to OMB for review soon and OMB blesses it sooner (maybe within a day as it did for some others)



The draft has been in place for a period of time. And they continue to improve upon the draft. That is how these things work.

We said many times before and we say it again, OMB is DOES NOT make any decision about the policy or what should be in the regulation or when the regulation should show up on Regulation.gov or when it is implemented. All those decisions are made by DHS and WH. So please STOP WASTING TIME with OMB. We know some people went to have 1 meeting with OMB during EAD for H4 rule and claimed that they got the fix done. For lack of any better way to say it - that is simply bullshit and people need to grow up and mature.

Going to OMB at the last minute doesn't do anything at all. You might as well sit at home and not do anything, the regulation will still pass as is.

Cons are what they are. PLEASE STOP aimlessly attacking USCIS. This document is not by USCIS. It is by DHS. Lawyers play these games of aimlessly pointing the anger of people towards USCIS, as if USCIS is the enemy. Get real and get happy. USCIS is made of ordinary people who draw ordinary salary of $60K per year to do their job of implementing the law. And for anyone suggesting the USCIS is "evil" or "nefarious" or "deliberately want immigrants to burn in hell" - that group of people (read that as immigration lawyers) are obfuscating the issue by misdirecting the anger of people at USCIS. Instead, this anger should be directed at immigration lawyers because they are the once who have lobbied for years, pretending to represent immigrants but at the same time lobbied against immigrants to make horrible laws which keep immigrants under the boots of employer and immigration lawyers.

Again, stop this obsession with OMB. OMB will do what they are told by DHS and WH.

hil3182
10-27-2015, 06:45 PM
Got a couple of questions that need addressing:

Q. Why are you not setting aside differences and working with lawyers?
A. How can we work with anyone who opposes fixes that are our core mission, like I140-EAD? We have been trying to get this done literally - for years. Our first stab at it was during the late Bush administration when the financial crisis put everything on hold. We know for a fact, that employer groups and the immigration lawyer lobby is trying to kill it. How can we work with people whose agenda is 180 degrees opposed to yours?

Q. What do you gain by bashing Greg and other immigration lawyers.
A. We do it to because every word we say is true and people need to know whats going on. Greg and other immigration lawyers are going to DC pushing an agenda that is going to HURT all of us, things like more H1-B's without more Green Cards - that will make all our wait longer - actively opposing commonsense things like H1-B reform to make switching jobs easier - I could go on and on. The only reason they are able to get away with it is because they claim to speak for you - and by not speaking out against the lawyers - you are silently acquiescing to them using your story to further their agenda -- and screw you in the process. That is why we speak out. We realize that some people don't like it, but it must be done. If we didn't do it, important and well-meaning people will be listening to the lawyers, under the mistaken assumption that lawyers speak for our best interests - and I guarantee you there would be no EO or HR.213. You would be waiting for the 2R's forever.

DMX17
10-27-2015, 07:26 PM
Hill/Admin2 - By exposing the lawyers, do we not increase their motivation to put more efforts behind hurting us more?

If I were a lawyer representing my clients (employers) and I stand to lose money just because legal immigrants want to be free of H1 or GC processes, I would do all I can to stop or delay I-140EAD/AP.

My concern is now we have given the lawyers yet another reason to block the only short term hope we have. The reason is to defeat IV (us).

FrankUnderwood
10-27-2015, 07:32 PM
Hill/Admin2 - By exposing the lawyers, do we not increase their motivation to put more efforts behind hurting us more?

If I were a lawyer representing my clients (employers) and I stand to lose money just because legal immigrants want to be free of H1 or GC processes, I would do all I can to stop or delay I-140EAD/AP.

My concern is now we have given the lawyers yet another reason to block the only short term hope we have. The reason is to defeat IV (us).

Be rest assured that every point there is a lawyers or employer lobby trying to sabotage our fixes, they will find dedicated IV members standing right around the corner to put them in their places.

We are not in the year 2000 anymore.

DMX17
10-27-2015, 07:35 PM
Be rest assured that every point there is a lawyers or employer lobby trying to sabotage our fixes, they will find dedicated IV members standing right around the corner to put them in their places.

We are not in the year 2000 anymore.

Damn right! I like your this post better than all the other posts.:D

Thanks again to the IV members standing at the corners!

hil3182
10-27-2015, 07:45 PM
Hill/Admin2 - By exposing the lawyers, do we not increase their motivation to put more efforts behind hurting us more?

If I were a lawyer representing my clients (employers) and I stand to lose money just because legal immigrants want to be free of H1 or GC processes, I would do all I can to stop or delay I-140EAD/AP.

My concern is now we have given the lawyers yet another reason to block the only short term hope we have. The reason is to defeat IV (us).

Employers and lawyers are not reactive like we are. When we see what's going on, we get pissed off, swear up and down that this is ridiculous -- and don't do anything.

Employers and immigration lawyers have highly paid lobbyists -- who systematically and ruthlessly examine every regulation - every law - for the slightest edge for their clients. They are a machine that would be screwing us day-in and day-out regardless of whether we exposed them or not.

Some of their tactics are so ruthless, you have no f***ing idea how much I would LOVE to tell you about them - but cannot on an open forum. In particular, the lengths they are going to just for killing I140-EAD is chilling.

In exposing them on our forum and FB page, maybe a few people will be motivated to speak up - that's the best we can hope, because honestly - most people won't do anything. They will soon be back on the lawyers forums, tweeting at "Greg" again.

The only good news in all of this, is a group of volunteers over almost a decade has developed expertise in essentially - knife fighting these bastards.

DMX17
10-27-2015, 07:59 PM
Thanks Hil for addressing the issue.

On that note, can I use the word DELETED open forum to describe the collective DELETED ?

On a serious note, please let us know about action required when the time is right.

It is sad that people are still tweeting the president, USCIS, DHS, republicans, democrates, anyone they can think of and complaining and complaining on a daily basis. Hope they will follow us and do the right thing for them and not be misguided by the "DELETED"

sengs
10-27-2015, 07:59 PM
Believe it or not, it is almost like the Matrix Trilogy - fighting off Agent Smith that crops up every time you eliminate one. Ultimately it is what you want that wins at the end. Do you remember what Nemo asked at the end, after he lost his vision? Once you know what you want - you defeat Agents Smith (yourself) and kill the machines (forces that want you to be their slave) to secure your Zion (Green Card/PR/peace). :):):)



Employers and lawyers are not reactive like we are. When we see what's going on, we get pissed off, swear up and down that this is ridiculous -- and don't do anything.

Employers and immigration lawyers have highly paid lobbyists -- who systematically and ruthlessly examine every regulation - every law - for the slightest edge for their clients. They are a machine that would be screwing us day-in and day-out regardless of whether we exposed them or not.

Some of their tactics are so ruthless, you have no f***ing idea how much I would LOVE to tell you about them - but cannot on an open forum. In particular, the lengths they are going to just for killing I140-EAD is chilling.

In exposing them on our forum and FB page, maybe a few people will be motivated to speak up - that's the best we can hope, because honestly - most people won't do anything. They will soon be back on the lawyers forums, tweeting at "Greg" again.

The only good news in all of this, is a group of volunteers over almost a decade has developed expertise in essentially - knife fighting these bastards.

sengs
10-27-2015, 08:01 PM
Thanks Hil for addressing the issue.

On that note, can I use the word "DELETED" open forum to describe the collective DELETED?

On a serious note, please let us know about action required when the time is right.

It is sad that people are still tweeting the president, USCIS, DHS, republicans, democrates, anyone they can think of and complaining and complaining on a daily basis. Hope they will follow us and do the right thing for them and not be misguided by the "DELETED"

I would keep it a little civil here. My opinion though.

DMX17
10-27-2015, 08:03 PM
I would keep it a little civil here. My opinion though.

Hil - please delete my anger. I agree with Sengs.

Administrator2
10-27-2015, 08:15 PM
Hill/Admin2 - By exposing the lawyers, do we not increase their motivation to put more efforts behind hurting us more?

If I were a lawyer representing my clients (employers) and I stand to lose money just because legal immigrants want to be free of H1 or GC processes, I would do all I can to stop or delay I-140EAD/AP.

My concern is now we have given the lawyers yet another reason to block the only short term hope we have. The reason is to defeat IV (us).


Rest assured 100% that the opponents (immigration lawyers) will do everything under the sun to block/delay/water-down EAD for I140 fix. That is what they have been doing, and that is what they will do, regardless of what we say or don't say.

The narrative in this thread is nothing new. We were forced to yell at AILA leadership at WH meetings. And rest assured, when we speak our mind, we make sure that people listen, and we give them the piece of our mind. Everyone knows how we feel about immigration lawyers and what they have been doing to immigrants. It wasn't as much known, until we showed up. And we will continue to expose these guys.

On a different subject, these guys like gotcher, sisknd etc, they are kids, not yet ready for prime time. We know some folks online think these guys as their gods. We just want people to know that these guys are nothing and they have no value in advocacy realm. We have made far more progress, and only reason for our progress that we are honest about our issues.

But we need people to mature up and not look at any of these lawyers as their gods. People have the power to speak up and get heard. There is no need to go through any of these lawyers for the purpose of advocacy, for if you involve them in any discussion, it will come back to hurt our issues. This is time tested chain of thought. We are better than all of these lawyers combined because we are honest in how we present our real life stories.

And rest assured, these opponents (immigration lawyers) will thank you for not giving 100% of your share when speaking up on your behalf asking for the fixes.

sengs
10-27-2015, 08:19 PM
What we ultimately want is freedom, and there is only one way to achieve freedom - fight for it yourself. If we don't fight for ourselves, we give rise to Agents Smith who come back to hurt ourselves and distracts us from the disruptive powers of the forces that want to keep you enslaved for their own growth and sustenance.

There is no other choice, but to fight yourself to gain your own independence. Don't see IV as an organization. IV is you. IV is me. Without you and I there is no IV. You want to be free, come and fight along with me and others like me and we will reach our zone much faster. Its an appeal from me.

hil3182
10-27-2015, 08:21 PM
Hil - please delete my anger. I agree with Sengs.

Sure, Done, but for for future reference, we don't mind profanity directed at the right people :D

We have called them much worse - often to their faces - we are all big boys here, lobbying isn't for the faint of heart.

abcdgc
10-27-2015, 08:22 PM
What we ultimately want is freedom, and there is only one way to achieve freedom - fight for it yourself. If we don't fight for ourselves, we give rise to Agents Smith who come back to hurt ourselves and distracts us from the disruptive powers of the forces that want to keep you enslaved for their own growth and sustenance.

There is no other choice, but to fight yourself to gain your own independence. Don't see IV as an organization. IV is you. IV is me. Without you and I there is no IV. You want to be free, come and fight along with me and others like me and we will reach our zone much faster. Its an appeal from me.

I am and will continue to be honored to fight along side you should to shoulder Mr. Sengupta. I read your story in NYT article and know that here in IV, I am with the best quality of folks anywhere in the world:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/incorrect-count-on-visas-disrupts-lives-of-highly-skilled-immigrants.html?_r=0

hil3182
10-27-2015, 08:31 PM
I am and will continue to be honored to fight along side you should to shoulder Mr. Sengupta. I read your story in NYT article and know that here in IV, I am with the best quality of folks anywhere in the world:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/incorrect-count-on-visas-disrupts-lives-of-highly-skilled-immigrants.html?_r=0

I feel the same way.

tginnj
10-27-2015, 08:48 PM
With an ead alone, you chnage your job snd file for h1 transfer?? Without AP thrown in, i am not sure what we gain unless someone can clarify...

Thanks

Administrator2
10-27-2015, 09:40 PM
With an ead alone, you chnage your job snd file for h1 transfer?? Without AP thrown in, i am not sure what we gain unless someone can clarify...

Thanks

There will be AP with EAD

bcci
10-27-2015, 10:03 PM
Admin/Mods,

We all know H4EAD which took about 2-3 years see the light. However, 140EADAP is part of EO and POTUS term will end by next year. So, should we expect this to be implemented by end of this year or early 2016? Thank You!!

waitinglongtime
10-27-2015, 11:05 PM
There will be AP with EAD

Thanks, waiting for upcoming action items.

vikastaneja
10-27-2015, 11:07 PM
I hope this time the agency/govt will keep people having I140 approved from previous employers, in mind.

Administrator2
10-28-2015, 01:05 AM
Admin/Mods,

We all know H4EAD which took about 2-3 years see the light. However, 140EADAP is part of EO and POTUS term will end by next year. So, should we expect this to be implemented by end of this year or early 2016? Thank You!!

You are comparing apples and oranges. EAD for H4 was not the same as EAD for I140.

For example, each bill is different. Some bills pass without arguments/debates, and some bills take decades.

EAD for H4 took time because even though it started in 2011 (after a lot of push from IV, long before that lawyer Shanpalli or any of these other folks showed up). The policy pitch and the sale was already made back then. The policy makers already decided to make the change. After that it was a matter of time. But then in 2012, the Administration wanted to play safe due to re-election. So EAD for H4 fix was delayed. Then in 2013, CIR started in the Senate. It passed the Senate but eventually House refused to take it up. By 2014, it was clear that House was not going to take up CIR, that is when the Administration again started to work on EAD for H4 fix.

That is the reason why EAD for H4 took time. And again, 5 people going to OMB once had absolutely no relevance to why/how/when EAD for H4 was done.

So there are many external factors that affected EAD for H4 fix, these factors were outside of the control of anyone.

As far as EAD for I140 is concerned, back in 2014, when every lawyer and company were pushing for Recapture and Dependents exemption, and every news article were talking about Recapture and Dependents exemption, we were telling everyone the truth, that Recapture and Dependents exemption WILL NOT HAPPEN. People online were offended and instead of listening to the truth, they were attacking us. We knew back then that Recapture and Dependents exemption, were not going to happen, and it was a diversion created by immigration lawyers. We knew that there was no point in wasting energy on Recapture and Dependents exemption. And we decided to look for other fixes that could help give job mobility to EB immigrants (including Same or Similar fix, EAD for I140 fix, fix the remove the authority of the employer to revoke I140 etc) even when they are waiting for green cards.

Guess what, fast forward 1 year, and here we are. Recapture and Dependents exemption are no where to be seen. And the fixes that IV pushed for are now being considered.

If Siskind is the one who has credibility, then why do we not see Recapture and Dependents exemption? And why do we see only fixes pushed by an unknown small group which according to Siskind has lost credibility? Now Siskind could post a DHS paper online to give an impression that he is the one authoring these fixes. But that is just not true. If anything, he did not push for these fixes and neither did other immigration lawyers.

We expect the final implementation of these regulatory fixes by the 3rd quarter of next year.

Administrator2
10-28-2015, 01:06 AM
I hope this time the agency/govt will keep people having I140 approved from previous employers, in mind.

We are told that they will, as long as the approved I140 is not already withdrawn at the time when the regulatory fix goes into effect

vikastaneja
10-28-2015, 01:58 AM
We are told that they will, as long as the approved I140 is not already withdrawn at the time when the regulatory fix goes into effect

Thanks!
If that happens, that will be of great relief...

gcseeker23
10-28-2015, 08:39 AM
Admin/Hil,

Are there any updates on Same/Similar fix ? Would it be part of i140EAD/AP regulation or a separate memo / regulation?

DMX17
10-28-2015, 08:50 AM
Admin/Hil,

Are there any updates on Same/Similar fix ? Would it be part of i140EAD/AP regulation or a separate memo / regulation?

I had read on a lawyer website that the same/similar fix (I believe a memo) was sent to OMB for approval back in end of September. The details of the memo are not available on the internet. Don't hold me to this, I hate that lawyer who posted (you know who I mean).

rupen
10-28-2015, 09:13 AM
You are comparing apples and oranges. EAD for H4 was not the same as EAD for I140.

For example, each bill is different. Some bills pass without arguments/debates, and some bills take decades.

EAD for H4 took time because even though it started in 2011 (after a lot of push from IV, long before that lawyer Shanpalli or any of these other folks showed up). The policy pitch and the sale was already made back then. The policy makers already decided to make the change. After that it was a matter of time. But then in 2012, the Administration wanted to play safe due to re-election. So EAD for H4 fix was delayed. Then in 2013, CIR started in the Senate. It passed the Senate but eventually House refused to take it up. By 2014, it was clear that House was not going to take up CIR, that is when the Administration again started to work on EAD for H4 fix.

That is the reason why EAD for H4 took time. And again, 5 people going to OMB once had absolutely no relevance to why/how/when EAD for H4 was done.

So there are many external factors that affected EAD for H4 fix, these factors were outside of the control of anyone.

As far as EAD for I140 is concerned, back in 2014, when every lawyer and company were pushing for Recapture and Dependents exemption, and every news article were talking about Recapture and Dependents exemption, we were telling everyone the truth, that Recapture and Dependents exemption WILL NOT HAPPEN. People online were offended and instead of listening to the truth, they were attacking us. We knew back then that Recapture and Dependents exemption, were not going to happen, and it was a diversion created by immigration lawyers. We knew that there was no point in wasting energy on Recapture and Dependents exemption. And we decided to look for other fixes that could help give job mobility to EB immigrants (including Same or Similar fix, EAD for I140 fix, fix the remove the authority of the employer to revoke I140 etc) even when they are waiting for green cards.

Guess what, fast forward 1 year, and here we are. Recapture and Dependents exemption are no where to be seen. And the fixes that IV pushed for are now being considered.

If Siskind is the one who has credibility, then why do we not see Recapture and Dependents exemption? And why do we see only fixes pushed by an unknown small group which according to Siskind has lost credibility? Now Siskind could post a DHS paper online to give an impression that he is the one authoring these fixes. But that is just not true. If anything, he did not push for these fixes and neither did other immigration lawyers.

We expect the final implementation of these regulatory fixes by the 3rd quarter of next year.

He has acknowledged that he and aila did not know about these fixes until summer and that's why did not know that they should put that in the document that aila submitted.

gcseeker23
10-28-2015, 09:13 AM
thanks DMX17 :)

hil3182
10-28-2015, 09:22 AM
He has acknowledged that he and aila did not know about these fixes until summer and that's why did not know that they should put that in the document that aila submitted.

That's another bullshit excuse. All Immigration lawyers know the backlog is a huge issue. A most obvious fix is I140-EAD, which the President has clear authority to do - but they didn't mention it - wow!!!

It's like an Emerency room Doctor looking at someone with a gunshot wound and not doing something to stop the bleeding.

So far we have seen two bullshit excuses for anyone keeping count, it didn't occur to them and page count restriction - which is hilarious - not to mention contradict each other.

DMX17
10-28-2015, 09:35 AM
He has acknowledged that he and aila did not know about these fixes until summer and that's why did not know that they should put that in the document that aila submitted.

Here is what they said on AILA response "Note that we have not included herein any suggestions for improvements that were referenced in connection with the President’s November 20, 2014 Executive Action announcement, as we assume that those are already being pursued."

This will be used to show that “we fully support” these fixes. How convenient!

From reading what other Lawyers included in their response, the only significant item that you will like is the mention of "early AOS" based on the turkey theory. But, that theory should now be called "Bakra" theory in my opinion. I don't think they really meant to push for it. Elephant's teeth! I will be happy to be proven wrong through, as I eat both Turkey and Bakra.:D

bcci
10-28-2015, 09:40 AM
That's another bullshit excuse. All Immigration lawyers know the backlog is a huge issue. A most obvious fix is I140-EAD, which the President has clear authority to do - but they didn't mention it - wow!!!

It's like an Emerency room Doctor looking at someone with a gunshot wound and not doing something to stop the bleeding.

So far we have seen two bullshit excuses for anyone keeping count, it didn't occur to them and page count restriction - which is hilarious - not to mention contradict each other.

Well, there is AILA meeting with USCIS sometime back in April - 2015. They have asked for clarification for most of the EO questions and guess what? 140EAD was missed in that Q/A too. How can that be a mistake?

gopal008
10-28-2015, 09:42 AM
All you muggles but but Greg Siskind tweeted support for I140 + EAD AP :D

freedomForAll
10-28-2015, 09:43 AM
Wow! So now Lawyers want to water down this implementation too!:mad: . Time to fight back :cool:

Looks like we need to give a fitting response. We should learn from the way the illegal immigrant population effectively got their relief from the WH. I appreciate their work and their talent in getting this done.

What we need to do is organize and start taking these lawyers/employers up for a fight. We can also fight in their way.

I hatred when that damn employer became happy due to the VB reversal. I hate it very badly :mad: .

Cmon guys. Let us brace ourselves for a fight . We are a million legal immigrants. We can do it. IV is the right oraganization to get this done.

rupen
10-28-2015, 09:48 AM
That's another bullshit excuse. All Immigration lawyers know the backlog is a huge issue. A most obvious fix is I140-EAD, which the President has clear authority to do - but they didn't mention it - wow!!!

It's like an Emerency room Doctor looking at someone with a gunshot wound and not doing something to stop the bleeding.

So far we have seen two bullshit excuses for anyone keeping count, it didn't occur to them and page count restriction - which is hilarious - not to mention contradict each other.

Here is how it goes

We have been advocating this for years. So, why did you not include in the document ? We did not know about this until summer. So the the say rule is coming out with years of their advocacy about which they did not know until this summer :) so they were advocating for something for years but only came to know what it was this summer. It all makes sense :)

DMX17
10-28-2015, 09:56 AM
Well, there is AILA meeting with USCIS sometime back in April - 2015. They have asked for clarification for most of the EO questions and guess what? 140EAD was missed in that Q/A too. How can that be a mistake?

Below is my most on that.

But as Rupen said above, they did not know about this fix until summer 2015 and hence cannot be blamed for not asking while, in January 2015 (after summer mind you) they assumed that Nov EO items are already pursued.

See if you find I-140 work authorization here too:

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/PED-AILA-USCIS-QA-41615.pdf

This is where AILA members apparently met USCIS to address issues, one of which was Executive Actions. "Oops, we probably omitted and an omission cannot be construed as we don't care about our immigrant clients." Heck, they even asked about accepting credit card payment which is more important.

Of course, if someone bothers them on twitter, they will say we "fully support" and same goes for blogs.:mad:

People - I have no intention for you to read this and start asking AILA/lawyers. Please save yourself the time and trouble and take it from me their answer will be "fully support".

rupen
10-28-2015, 10:05 AM
Below is my most on that.

But as Rupen said above, they did not know about this fix until summer 2015 and hence cannot be blamed for not asking while, in January 2015 (after summer mind you) they assumed that Nov EO items are already pursued.

Just to be clear, i was being sarcastic :) they did not ask for that in october either when they wrote letter about visa bulletin reversal. I guess they were still processing information from summer :)

DMX17
10-28-2015, 10:08 AM
Just to be clear, i was being sarcastic :) they did not ask for that in october either when they wrote letter about visa bulletin reversal. I guess they were still processing information from summer :)

I was also being sarcasitc in my post.:D

Ramalingam
10-28-2015, 11:00 AM
That's another bullshit excuse. All Immigration lawyers know the backlog is a huge issue. A most obvious fix is I140-EAD, which the President has clear authority to do - but they didn't mention it - wow!!!

It's like an Emerency room Doctor looking at someone with a gunshot wound and not doing something to stop the bleeding.

So far we have seen two bullshit excuses for anyone keeping count, it didn't occur to them and page count restriction - which is hilarious - not to mention contradict each other.
First of all we cannot expect the policy of one person or group cannot be same as other.

Everyone clearly knows that Lawyers were pushing for recapture and dependent exemption. In fact IV also did some campaign for recapture in last March. So that means IV also had some confident on recapture also. IV was working on temporary fixes like I140 and H4-EAD etc. If IV succeeds in those fixes why lawyers also have to work on it,. Instead they can concentrate on bigger things like recapture. Those needs advocacy and lobbying

Also it makes sense for some lawyers to oppose Hr 3012 or Hr 213.Those bills will get benefits to Indians at the cost of rest of world. You can argue for and against but end result is costing one group and benefiting other group in potential immigrants. So some or many lawyers have the opinion that remove country quota with adding more green cards by recapture and or dependent exemption. If you are in rest of the world I am sure you will also oppose.

I cannot comment accusing lawyers for trying to block fixes by backdoor way as no one provided evidence or proof. One case accuse whatever. That will be always suspicion which may or may not be true.

waitinglongtime
10-28-2015, 11:25 AM
Here is what they said on AILA response "Note that we have not included herein any suggestions for improvements that were referenced in connection with the President’s November 20, 2014 Executive Action announcement, as we assume that those are already being pursued."

This will be used to show that “we fully support” these fixes. How convenient!

From reading what other Lawyers included in their response, the only significant item that you will like is the mention of "early AOS" based on the turkey theory. But, that theory should now be called "Bakra" theory in my opinion. I don't think they really meant to push for it. Elephant's teeth! I will be happy to be proven wrong through, as I eat both Turkey and Bakra.:D

From other website

who supported I140-EAD : separating MILK and WATER, I140EAD with AP mentioned in IV comments

Immigration-voice(IV) Aman Kapoor Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1349)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1349&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

16-Associations (includes AILA)- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1271)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1271&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Fragomen- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1362)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=2&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=3&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=4&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=5&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Compete America- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1467)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1467&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Council of Global Immigration- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1296)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1296&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Greg siskind : ??????????

CYRUS MEHTA- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1179)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1179&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

AILA-http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1499

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1499&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

:D:D

hil3182
10-28-2015, 11:30 AM
First of all we cannot expect the policy of one person or group cannot be same as other.

Everyone clearly knows that Lawyers were pushing for recapture and dependent exemption. In fact IV also did some campaign for recapture in last March. So that means IV also had some confident on recapture also. IV was working on temporary fixes like I140 and H4-EAD etc. If IV succeeds in those fixes why lawyers also have to work on it,. Instead they can concentrate on bigger things like recapture. Those needs advocacy and lobbying

There always was a very small chance of recapture - and there still is. But to hang our hat on on something with a small chance is advocacy mal-practice. Similarly, even though Recapture has a very small chance - we went the extra mile to show the WH that there was political support for Recapture and Dependent exemption with the letter. To not go the extra mile would be advocacy malpractice.

The lawyers just talked about Recapture in public and threw in a couple of lines in their submission. Behind the scenes, they barely talked about it - we know this because we were in the same meetings as they were. Facetime with WH officials is very valuable and to waste any kind of serious time talking about something that isn't happening is stupid - AILA might be many things, but they are not stupid.

The lawyers were playing a very cynical game where all they talked about was Recapture and Dependent exemption in public -- and there wasn't a word about more achievable fixes. They created Recapture and Dependent exemption hysteria in the media to drown out other more achievable fixes.

If you are too dumb to understand this, you are on the wrong forum.

Also it makes sense for some lawyers to oppose Hr 3012 or Hr 213.Those bills will get benefits to Indians at the cost of rest of world. You can argue for and against but end result is costing one group and benefiting other group in potential immigrants. So some or many lawyers have the opinion that remove country quota with adding more green cards by recapture and or dependent exemption. If you are in rest of the world I am sure you will also oppose.

I cannot comment accusing lawyers for trying to block fixes by backdoor way as no one provided evidence or proof. One case accuse whatever. That will be always suspicion which may or may not be true.
But I can comment, because I have been to very disturbing meetings and let me assure you they are going through unbelievable lengths to kill this.

If you think it makes sense for lawyers to oppose HR.213, what makes you think they will not oppose I140-EAD EVEN MORE which will cost them EVEN MORE than HR.213? They are trying desperately to kill I140-EAD. Until November 15th (and maybe even after), killing I140-EAD, is #1 on their agenda.

Also, why do you think option #4 is even on the document?

hil3182
10-28-2015, 11:38 AM
From other website

who supported I140-EAD : separating MILK and WATER, I140EAD with AP mentioned in IV comments

Immigration-voice(IV) Aman Kapoor Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1349)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1349&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

16-Associations (includes AILA)- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1271)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1271&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Fragomen- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1362)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=2&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=3&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=4&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=5&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Compete America- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1467)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1467&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Council of Global Immigration- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1296)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1296&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Greg siskind : ??????????

CYRUS MEHTA- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1179)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1179&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

AILA-http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1499

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1499&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

:D:D

Of those submissions, the only submissions that matter are submissions from large organizations that have the clout, stamina and firepower for marathon meetings over months to hash out the details in their regulatory submissions.

The submissions are just first steps, they expect legal-research, political support and PR support from the organization they are doing the regulation for - otherwise the submission will be read and pro-forma marked up by some summer intern before being thrown in the recycling bin.

If Greg, Cyrus, Ron or any other idiot immigration lawyer with a blog, twitter account or forum does a regulatory submission - it means less than nothing. Submissions from orgs like AILA, IV, Compete America are meaningful. This is how the world really works.

vikidisi
10-28-2015, 12:20 PM
From other website

who supported I140-EAD : separating MILK and WATER, I140EAD with AP mentioned in IV comments

Immigration-voice(IV) Aman Kapoor Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1349)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1349&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

16-Associations (includes AILA)- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1271)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1271&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Fragomen- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1362)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=2&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=3&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=4&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1362&attachmentNumber=5&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Compete America- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1467)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1467&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Council of Global Immigration- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1296)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1296&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Greg siskind : ??????????

CYRUS MEHTA- Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1179)

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1179&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

AILA-http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2014-0014-1499

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS-2014-0014-1499&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

:D:D

This is a great post. Separating the milk from water :)

Hil - can we should move this to a new thread? Call it "Here's the evidence" or something. So that everyone can review and get their thinking straight. This is great content that everyone needs to see.

barathvb
10-28-2015, 12:27 PM
A quick question...

"The current draft regulation limits EAD eligibility to primary beneficiaries and their derivative family members with an I-140 petition that has been approved for at least one year"

1. What date are they actually referring to when they mean one year? Is it the priority date? or is it the date when the I-140 petition is approved by USCIS?

2. Why are they proposing this one year requirement? What is our action item to have this removed?

vikidisi
10-28-2015, 12:39 PM
A quick question...

"The current draft regulation limits EAD eligibility to primary beneficiaries and their derivative family members with an I-140 petition that has been approved for at least one year"

1. What date are they actually referring to when they mean one year? Is it the priority date? or is it the date when the I-140 petition is approved by USCIS?

2. Why are they proposing this one year requirement? What is our action item to have this removed?

1. Approval Date
2. Stay tuned for Action items

barathvb
10-28-2015, 12:46 PM
1. Approval Date
2. Stay tuned for Action items

Using the Approval date seems unfair. I believe they should use the priority date. We are already going through more than 1 year of process (currently 7 to 8 months for labor certification and few more months for I-140 processing). This easily adds up to more than a year difference between approval date and priority date. Using approval date is more evil. Why can't they keep it consistent and use priority date?

I request we create an action item to use priority date instead of the approval date. Can we please?

vikidisi
10-28-2015, 01:02 PM
Using the Approval date seems unfair. I believe they should use the priority date. We are already going through more than 1 year of process (currently 7 to 8 months for labor certification and few more months for I-140 processing). This easily adds up to more than a year difference between approval date and priority date. Using approval date is more evil. Why can't they keep it consistent and use priority date?

I request we create an action item to use priority date instead of the approval date. Can we please?

:-) Rest assured, IV is on it.

It just doesn't make sense because right now folks from other countries can file I-485 concurrently. Also most people are in year 7 or so by the time they get their I-140, what will an additional year do?

barathvb
10-28-2015, 01:12 PM
:-) Rest assured, IV is on it.

It just doesn't make sense because right now folks from other countries can file I-485 concurrently. Also most people are in year 7 or so by the time they get their I-140, what will an additional year do?

Thanks. IV is my only ray of hope. I will follow all the action items related to this.

I will have my approved I-140 in the next two months (hopefully). I am running out of L1B time mid next year. Unfortunately, I did not get selected in this year's H1B lottery and am scared about next year's lottery. If I don't make it in next year's lottery, I have to leave the country. I really hope I will be able to use I-140 EAD before I run out of L1B time.

DMX17
10-28-2015, 01:14 PM
:-) Rest assured, IV is on it.

It just doesn't make sense because right now folks from other countries can file I-485 concurrently. Also most people are in year 7 or so by the time they get their I-140, what will an additional year do?

I like this attitude and let's change that 1 year if possible.

Just so the immigrant community knows that I am their true savior, I have been advocating for this ever since I joined IV. Action speaks for itself. Please follow me twitter!

IV team,

I am not sure if it is too late to but….One point to consider in the list of suggestions:

Allow application of I-485/EAD/AP at the time of filing I-140 even if PD is not current (not after I-140 is approved). This way, the AC21 180 days after filing I-485 relief starts at the same time as filing the I-140/485/EAD/AP.

The benefit of above would be that the beneficiary does not have to wait for I-140 approval, which for a non-premium case could mean as long as 6-8 months.

Note that the above suggection is consistent with the current regulation of allowing concurrent filing of I-485/140/EAD/AP if PD is current. :)

Thanks.

Just for giggles, according to the immigration laws created by the beloved advocates, we all are openly advertising our intent to leave the sponsoring employer even before they file our PERM and I-140 is approved. That could be considered fraud. However, I say it’s just intent and it cannot be proved. :D

hil3182
10-28-2015, 01:21 PM
Our position regarding wait times on I140-EAD is there is no basis in statue for ANY wait times.

People are confusing I485-EAD with I140-EAD. With I1485-EAD you will have to wait 6 months after your PD becomes current - as required by statue.

We are asking for ZERO wait times for I140-EAD. Let us see what we get.

gopal008
10-28-2015, 01:30 PM
Our position regarding wait times on I140-EAD is there is no basis in statue for ANY wait times.

People are confusing I485-EAD with I140-EAD. With I1485-EAD you will have to wait 6 months after your PD becomes current - as required by statue.

We are asking for ZERO wait times for I140-EAD. Let us see what we get.

This is Awesome. Hopefully We get Zero Wait time.

hil3182
10-28-2015, 01:44 PM
This is Awesome. Hopefully We get Zero Wait time.

Not only that, if things work out the way we hope it will, you will not even be restricted by 6 months on I1485-EAD.

If you loose your job (or find a better one within 6 months of filling I485-EAD), just refile your I1485 with the new employer - your medicals will still be valid.

This is why employers & lawyers are shit scared of the fixes we a pushing through. From 100% leverage over us, their control over us will drop to near 0% once we get I140-EAD.

The efforts they are putting towards killing our fixes are acts of pure desperation at this point. They have a lot of money and access - we are taking them very seriously.

roshannirmal
10-28-2015, 01:54 PM
As the focus has shifted towards I140-EADAP, the Oct VB reversal has taken a backseat.
Well the litigation takes its own time, I'm wondering if IV still thinks Oct VB reversal is possible?

rupen
10-28-2015, 02:08 PM
First of all we cannot expect the policy of one person or group cannot be same as other.

Everyone clearly knows that Lawyers were pushing for recapture and dependent exemption. In fact IV also did some campaign for recapture in last March. So that means IV also had some confident on recapture also. IV was working on temporary fixes like I140 and H4-EAD etc. If IV succeeds in those fixes why lawyers also have to work on it,. Instead they can concentrate on bigger things like recapture. Those needs advocacy and lobbying

Also it makes sense for some lawyers to oppose Hr 3012 or Hr 213.Those bills will get benefits to Indians at the cost of rest of world. You can argue for and against but end result is costing one group and benefiting other group in potential immigrants. So some or many lawyers have the opinion that remove country quota with adding more green cards by recapture and or dependent exemption. If you are in rest of the world I am sure you will also oppose.

I cannot comment accusing lawyers for trying to block fixes by backdoor way as no one provided evidence or proof. One case accuse whatever. That will be always suspicion which may or may not be true.

Your logic seems to be like why cannot we try to go to moon when we cannot travel within the country. If there is nothing wrong in that logic, then there is nothing wrong in trying for recapture and dependent exemption without trying for i140ead. With regards to second point, this is not dividing the tasks where one person does one task and the other some other task. If that was the case, there would be only one group asking for one thing and the other asking for the other thing

rupen
10-28-2015, 02:25 PM
As the focus has shifted towards I140-EADAP, the Oct VB reversal has taken a backseat.
Well the litigation takes its own time, I'm wondering if IV still thinks Oct VB reversal is possible?

Read Admin's post couple of pages back

gcseeker23
10-28-2015, 03:15 PM
Also it makes sense for some lawyers to oppose Hr 3012 or Hr 213.Those bills will get benefits to Indians at the cost of rest of world.

Well, HR312 would provide a level playing field that is fair to everyone who comes through the EB path irrespective of country of origin. This is just and fair.
Anyone who says they support legal immigrants but oppose HR312 is just playing games and as some one said earlier "is a wolf in sheep's clothing".

advik20
10-28-2015, 03:26 PM
Well, HR312 would provide a level playing field that is fair to everyone who comes through the EB path irrespective of country of origin. This is just and fair.
Anyone who says they support legal immigrants but oppose HR312 is just playing games and as some one said earlier "is a wolf in sheep's clothing".

10 months and still not before judiciary comitee?

hil3182
10-28-2015, 03:28 PM
10 months and still not before judiciary comitee?

Yep. That is why we need more co-sponsors on the bill. Have you lobbied congressmen in your area, or are you just here to complain?

DMX17
10-28-2015, 05:16 PM
Admin/Hil,

Are there any updates on Same/Similar fix ? Would it be part of i140EAD/AP regulation or a separate memo / regulation?

I was referring to this on Same/Similar:
Pending EO 12866 Regulatory Review (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=125537)

Bhishma
10-28-2015, 05:56 PM
Yep. That is why we need more co-sponsors on the bill. Have you lobbied congressmen in your area?

Everyone,

With my experience meeting with Congressman Yoder's office yesterday to request support and co-sponsorship for HR 213 I would like to state that


Requesting a meeting with Congressman's office is as simple as picking up your phone and calling the Congressman's office
The staffers at the Congressman's office are very informed and friendly
I was by myself in my meeting yesterday and it was not hard for me to explain the situation and request co-sponsorship


I request everyone who hasnt done this before, to please try it out and help yourself and help us

Thanks

sengs
10-28-2015, 08:39 PM
Everyone,

With my experience meeting with Congressman Yoder's office yesterday to request support and co-sponsorship for HR 213 I would like to state that


Requesting a meeting with Congressman's office is as simple as picking up your phone and calling the Congressman's office
The staffers at the Congressman's office are very informed and friendly
I was by myself in my meeting yesterday and it was not hard for me to explain the situation and request co-sponsorship


I request everyone who hasnt done this before, to please try it out and help yourself and help us

Thanks

Thanks for doing it Bhishma.

advik20
10-29-2015, 08:06 AM
Yep. That is why we need more co-sponsors on the bill. Have you lobbied congressmen in your area, or are you just here to complain?
call me on REMOVED and train me.

I can go and meet my rep in fl.

hil3182
10-29-2015, 09:31 AM
call me on REMOVED and train me.

I can go and meet my rep in fl.

Firstly the word "please" would be helpful. This is costing us all a lot of money and time (more than a lot of people spend on their day jobs) and your tone isn't helpful.

That said, please PM me your email address, I will send out some material to you tonight. It should be pretty self explanatory.

Thank you for stepping up.

hil3182
10-29-2015, 09:33 AM
Everyone,

With my experience meeting with Congressman Yoder's office yesterday to request support and co-sponsorship for HR 213 I would like to state that


Requesting a meeting with Congressman's office is as simple as picking up your phone and calling the Congressman's office
The staffers at the Congressman's office are very informed and friendly
I was by myself in my meeting yesterday and it was not hard for me to explain the situation and request co-sponsorship


I request everyone who hasnt done this before, to please try it out and help yourself and help us

Thanks

Thank you and good job!

Please don't forget to obsessively followup - that is the most important part which people keep forgetting to do.

advik20
10-29-2015, 09:34 AM
Firstly the word "please" would be helpful. This is costing us all a lot of money and time (more than a lot of people spend on their day jobs) and your tone isn't helpful.

That said, please PM me your email address, I will send out some material to you tonight. It should be pretty self explanatory.

Thank you for stepping up.

dint realize my tone can jeopardize the great work you are doing :o

anyways lets put this aside I have sent you a PM.

CuriousGC
10-29-2015, 11:10 AM
Is there anyone from MN state chapter here. I was thinking the other day, like we have lot of Indian people at Temple during this festival season, if we can just get a stall and ask people to sign the paper for HR 213 and we will take that to Congressman during the meet. How much those physical signature makes an impact.

sengs
10-29-2015, 11:25 AM
Is there anyone from MN state chapter here. I was thinking the other day, like we have lot of Indian people at Temple during this festival season, if we can just get a stall and ask people to sign the paper for HR 213 and we will take that to Congressman during the meet. How much those physical signature makes an impact.

Please join our MN state chapter using the link in my signature. We have an active group in MN who are already successful in getting cosponsorships. More help from you will definitely be appreciated there. Thanks and best of Luck. And yes, physical signatures do make a huge impact.

CuriousGC
10-29-2015, 12:11 PM
Thanks Sengs!! I did Joined the state chapter!!!

vikidisi
10-29-2015, 12:25 PM
Everyone,

With my experience meeting with Congressman Yoder's office yesterday to request support and co-sponsorship for HR 213 I would like to state that


Requesting a meeting with Congressman's office is as simple as picking up your phone and calling the Congressman's office
The staffers at the Congressman's office are very informed and friendly
I was by myself in my meeting yesterday and it was not hard for me to explain the situation and request co-sponsorship


I request everyone who hasnt done this before, to please try it out and help yourself and help us

Thanks

Fantastic job! I hope more folks will see this and realize the power and potential we have to bring about a change.

Agree with others, you have to obsessively follow-up every week until you win that cosponsorship.

greyhair
10-29-2015, 01:12 PM
the evil alliance of desi employers and immigration lawyers at its best..... here is another example...

this group ITServe | Home (http://itserve.org/) has ALL desi body shops whose business model is to bring on H1B and exploit...

and, surprise surprise..... immigration lawyers are convenient bed fellows..... immigration lawyers are talking about "Burning Issues For IT Employers".... and although they have listed EB green cards on the agenda, in reality they will be ONLY talking about H1B and OPT.....

ITServe | Immigration Panel Discussion (http://itserve.org/immigrationpanel?utm_content=buffer76c0a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

where are those idiots who want to "work with" immigration lawyers? why? so they can continue to screw us for 50 more year? :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Bhishma
10-29-2015, 02:09 PM
dint realize my tone can jeopardize the great work you are doing :o

anyways lets put this aside I have sent you a PM.

Thank you, Please and Sorry go long way in America. I know tens of people who can only speak these 3 words in English and are making a living in this great country for over 30 years now.

That said, I encourage you to go through all the material and post any questions if you need quick answers on this forum. There are many members on this forum who can answer your questions right away and also offer you tips that ease your effort

Besides the nice handouts and material I got from IV,
I printed a copy of HR 3012 (and local Congressman's statement when he supported HR 3012) and Hr 213 to show their similarity.
I made notes on all the immigration bills he supported and all his statements made on twitter, townhalls, in the house and to the media
I gathered 22 letters from my colleagues, friends and family requesting the Congressman to support HR 213
I memorized all the Republican Congressman's names who co-sponsored HR 213 and I mentioned their names and also Luis Gutierrez name when I was making my pitch.
It is important to not talk about H1B's, startup companies, entrepreneur visas or illegal immigration. Focus only on HR 213 and not even Visa Bulletin Reversal.
Be sure that your conversation is not side tracked and always make sure that you are in control

Trust me, the folks at the Congressman's office are friendly and very informed. They fill you up and sometimes say many things that add up.

hil3182
10-29-2015, 02:17 PM
FYI, AILA stuff has sidetracked a lot of good discussions and productive initiatives - like HR.213 meetings and I140-EAD information, so we are moving all such things to a new thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096567-aila-news-and-discussion.html). Please enjoy responsibly :D

crackjack9
10-29-2015, 02:32 PM
Besides the nice handouts and material I got from IV,
I printed a copy of HR 3012 (and local Congressman's statement when he supported HR 3012) and Hr 213 to show their similarity.
I made notes on all the immigration bills he supported and all his statements made on twitter, townhalls, in the house and to the media
I gathered 22 letters from my colleagues, friends and family requesting the Congressman to support HR 213
I memorized all the Republican Congressman's names who co-sponsored HR 213 and I mentioned their names and also Luis Gutierrez name when I was making my pitch.
It is important to not talk about H1B's, startup companies, entrepreneur visas or illegal immigration. Focus only on HR 213 and not even Visa Bulletin Reversal.
Be sure that your conversation is not side tracked and always make sure that you are in control

Trust me, the folks at the Congressman's office are friendly and very informed. They fill you up and sometimes say many things that add up.

Way to Go ! Bhishma..

legalexpat
10-29-2015, 02:44 PM
Is there a handout already prepared by IV? I have submitted my own taking data from my county and local companies and how that would help grow the overall economy.

Can someone share the handouts that IV has ?

crackjack9
10-29-2015, 02:54 PM
Is there a handout already prepared by IV? I have submitted my own taking data from my county and local companies and how that would help grow the overall economy.

Can someone share the handouts that IV has ?

PM me your email address please.

advik20
10-30-2015, 08:43 AM
Firstly the word "please" would be helpful. This is costing us all a lot of money and time (more than a lot of people spend on their day jobs) and your tone isn't helpful.

That said, please PM me your email address, I will send out some material to you tonight. It should be pretty self explanatory.

Thank you for stepping up.


Did not get any email from you.

hil3182
10-30-2015, 09:13 AM
Did not get any email from you.

Check it now, you should be all set.

Aemon.Targ
10-30-2015, 12:52 PM
Hi, this is Aemon, new member of this forum. Hope everyone is fine.

I have read the document completely, few options make sense and few doesn't. But what I didn't understand here is, title of the document was "EAD for Approved I140 beneficiaries". So in what way undocumented aliens are related to this EAD? I scratched my head to find what's the relation, can anyone help me in understanding this?

DMX17
10-30-2015, 01:21 PM
Hi, this is Aemon, new member of this forum. Hope everyone is fine.

I have read the document completely, few options make sense and few doesn't. But what I didn't understand here is, title of the document was "EAD for Approved I140 beneficiaries". So in what way undocumented aliens are related to this EAD? I scratched my head to find what's the relation, can anyone help me in understanding this?

I think the lawyers would know the right answer as this issue is complicated and not something us legal folks would know about in our law-abiding world.

Read footnote 2 on page 2. It seems they are talking about people who are not eligible to file 485 due to overstaying a visa or entering without inspection, but have an approved I-140, can benefit from Option 1. Again, I am not a lawyer but I know there are people overstaying here since the 90s who may actually benefit from this EAD based on their approved I-140 without the need to leave the U.S.

Aemon.Targ
10-30-2015, 02:57 PM
I think the lawyers would know the right answer as this issue is complicated and not something us legal folks would know about in our law-abiding world.

Read footnote 2 on page 2. It seems they are talking about people who are not eligible to file 485 due to overstaying a visa or entering without inspection, but have an approved I-140, can benefit from Option 1. Again, I am not a lawyer but I know there are people overstaying here since the 90s who may actually benefit from this EAD based on their approved I-140 without the need to leave the U.S.

So do you think that's a good thing to do? If overstayed aliens/undocumented also gets EAD don't you think there is a chance of lawsuit filed against this action?

DMX17
10-30-2015, 03:58 PM
So do you think that's a good thing to do? If overstayed aliens/undocumented also gets EAD don't you think there is a chance of lawsuit filed against this action?

Since you asked me, I have no opinion on that issue.

student79
11-01-2015, 12:24 AM
We never know what future political atmosphere will bring, may be if Mr. Trump will come, he is against of H1B.

May be USCIS still have opportunity to make money out of us via EAD for I-140 approved :D

Let see.

gchungry
11-02-2015, 04:02 PM
Here is the link to the USCIS Internal Memo from June 2015 about EAD for I140. The work is underway and we expect the rule to come out in public for comments on/around 15th November.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwcu66m3vnj9nta/USCIS_Memo_for_EAD_for_I140_June2015.pdf?dl=0

There is also background activity whereby immigration lawyers and companies are working very hard to derail EAD for I140 fix. They are trying all sorts of ways to derail or water down this fix that we have worked for years.

Immigration lawyers and companies want this fix to be only applied to those with 'Extraordinary Circumstances' i.e. where employee can show economic hardship, exploitation by employer etc. They are trying to water down so no more than 600 people in an year would be able to benefit from this fix.

We ask that you NOT engage in any online petitions. Online petitions are distraction and diversion from real effort. Often times these petitions are started by immigration lawyers as diversion from real advocacy. Online petitions severely hurt our efforts. Again, please DO NOT engage in online petitions.

We will soon publish action items and we ask you to actively participate in these actions items.

Here is the link to FB Post for this information/announcement.
https://www.facebook.com/ImmigrationVoice/posts/1025332340866323

Thank you

Team IV

I was wondering if Admin provided any specific action items pertaining to this upcoming announcement. I was just wondering if I missed it.

shyamps
11-02-2015, 09:12 PM
No action items have been announced yet for the I140 EAD rule. We'll all have to wait for them to announce the action items& follow them once they are announced.

whiteStallion
11-03-2015, 12:29 AM
The Hill's interpretation of this Memo is that its a ploy to provide EADs to undocumented, circumventing DAPA injunction. They have linked IV's document as the source :-)

Leaked DHS memo shows Obama might circumvent DAPA injunction | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/258689-leaked-dhs-memo-shows-obama-might-circumvent-dapa)

Obama Admin to Defy Judge's Executive Amnesty Injunction (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/dhs-memo-obama-admin-scheming-to-defy-judges-executive-amnesty-injunction/)

DMX17
11-03-2015, 08:35 AM
It links to IV forum. I am popular and so are others.

legalexpat
11-03-2015, 10:07 AM
Would it make sense to edit the first post and mention clearly that the articles that are linked are a lie ? Even if undocumented get the EAD, they can contribute taxes but are not eligible for benefits.

Also, how come every immigration article on every major website has a disproportionately high number of comments? I have a feeling there is an army of paid trolls who are writing these comments to rile up people. Only thing I don't know is who is paying them. Trump maybe ?

gccommando
11-03-2015, 11:34 AM
i want to post online the list of lawyers and employers opposing i-140 ead fix...lol

BenCokila
11-03-2015, 11:38 AM
i want to post online the list of lawyers and employers opposing i-140 ead fix...lol

I think thats a great idea.

Aemon.Targ
11-03-2015, 12:39 PM
The Hill's interpretation of this Memo is that its a ploy to provide EADs to undocumented, circumventing DAPA injunction. They have linked IV's document as the source :-)

Leaked DHS memo shows Obama might circumvent DAPA injunction | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/258689-leaked-dhs-memo-shows-obama-might-circumvent-dapa)

Obama Admin to Defy Judge's Executive Amnesty Injunction (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/dhs-memo-obama-admin-scheming-to-defy-judges-executive-amnesty-injunction/)

I hope people who read the above article visit this forum and realize that I140 is only for legal immigrants and not for undocumented aliens. As I suspected earlier, if undocumented aliens are included in this document then there are chances of lawsuit and we may never the EAD based on I140.

gopal008
11-03-2015, 01:54 PM
Is it ok for a HIL website to refer our forum with out any permission ? I think they should asked to take down the article. The document clearly has IV watermark.

kamakazee
11-04-2015, 11:31 PM
Dear Aman and Puneet - It is with regret that I have to request my removal from your Board of Advisors. I’ve really enjoyed working with IV over the years on its advocacy efforts and have found participating in many of your teleconferences assisting IV members with their immigration questions to be rewarding. But after seeing this passage in Aman’s email advocating on behalf of amending HR 3012 (a bill I strongly support, by the way) I can no longer in good conscience be associated with the organization.

Unfortunately, some immigration lawyers and their advocacy groups in DC are against this amendment. We believe that this fringe group has always advocated a system where immigrants are taken advantage of.

Immigration Lawyers have chosen to be on the wrong side of history. They want to protect companies that are abusing the system. This set of Immigration lawyers want to side with companies that are under-cutting US workers and committing fraud.

It’s time for us to standup to speak for ourselves and tell everyone that immigration lawyers don't represent immigrants. When it comes to advocacy, immigration lawyers and their groups only represent their own special interest to design the system to keep more people in limbo for longer so that they can pocket more money through renewals and extension of applications for visas and work-permits while immigrants wait forever in their green card process. A large percentage of these immigration lawyers have a vested interest in keeping the immigration process slow and confusing. They will oppose streamlining or simplifying the process that would help employers and employees.

I think the IV position on the Grassley Amendment is really short sighted and will be deeply regretted over time. But I would not quit over a policy difference. I just can’t sit idly by and listen to my brethren – people that have dedicated their careers to helping immigrants (many being immigrants themselves) – painted as being greedy and anti-immigrant. I am personally insulted by this form of defamation and it strongly resembles the type of attack we usually hear from rabid anti-immigrants attacking us for advocating on behalf of immigrants. That this email originated from an immigrants rights advocacy group is simply shocking. You say you are only talking about “some lawyers” but I can tell you that the immigration bar sees this as an attack on all of us. The letter has circulated like wildfire across the immigration bar and I’m afraid IV’s reputation has been seriously damaged with a group that is composed of people that are naturally allied with most of your positions. And in Washington, finding allies is necessary in the long run to achieving anything. It’s also unfortunate because lashing out and defaming the immigration bar was unnecessary. You could have simply taken your position and just stated that you disagree with other groups, but stand by your decisions as representing the best interests of your members. Instead, you’ve hurt IV’s chances of finding friends in the future to help on issues that will be of concern to you.

Finally, It’s also odd that you have a Board of Advisors comprised of a number of immigration lawyers you consider to be trusted enough to include on a board of this sort, but we had to learn about your attack on immigration lawyers from other lawyers who heard about it online.

I wish the two of you well.
Regards,
Greg Siskind
Gregory Siskind, Attorney at Law
Siskind Susser - Immigration Lawyers
Telephone: 800-748-3819 or 901-682-6455
Fax: 800-684-1267 or 901-339-9604
Email: gsiskind@visalaw.com
Web: Guide To U.S. Immigration Law | Law Firm Assisting With Visas, Green Cards, Naturalization | Siskind Susser PC (http://www.visalaw.com)

hil3182
11-05-2015, 12:19 AM
Please continue all Lawyer related discussions in the lawyer thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096567-aila-news-and-discussion.html). Please enjoy responsibly :D

Bhishma
11-05-2015, 12:27 AM
will do :D

hil3182
11-05-2015, 03:18 PM
Aman Kapoor pressuring DHS today :D

Try to go back to -24 mins towards the end: https://youtu.be/nUh-VO9k15E

vikastaneja
11-05-2015, 03:23 PM
Aman Kapoor pressuring DHS today :D

Try to go back to -24 mins towards the end: https://youtu.be/nUh-VO9k15E

Yes, he was amazing....Many thanks to him. :)
He has made a valid point - it is immigration petition, then why it is not owned by employee... the panel had no answer to it... in fact, the panel had no answer to any of the questions...
This made me to think... the current EAD for I140 proposal, will it be worth??? Well, let's wait and watch...

Again, Many thanks to Aman and people who were all there to support!

DMX17
11-05-2015, 03:35 PM
Aman Kapoor pressuring DHS today :D

Try to go back to -24 mins towards the end: https://youtu.be/nUh-VO9k15E

Excellent questions raised by Aman about immigrants right and "Immigrant Petition"!

One question, was the tone intended (pre-planned) or just that the BS-ness of the conference made Aman do the right thing in the moment?:D

And who was the employer's representative on the panel? Any idea?

ReachSiva
11-05-2015, 03:44 PM
Hi,

I'm a new member following IV for the past couple of months.

I listened the conference call and happy to hear Aman representation.

Very nice points raised and expressed our pain with good intensity .

In the end either no specific question raised and/or answered.

Aman expressed that nobody spoke about the Beneficiaries rights(which is very true) but didn't posed the direct question to the panel on what they are doing improve beneficiaries rights. I observed they are out of time, but still feel question not posed fully as well no panel member (attempted to) answered. This is a nice question to get answered.


Regards
ReachSiva

SSIVUS
11-05-2015, 04:13 PM
Audio of Aman's speech today. Copied from FB

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=80baa97690927ffc&id=80BAA97690927FFC!751&authkey=!AA-hcl6CtBR9vpw

nrmarrivada9
11-05-2015, 05:20 PM
Aman and IV Team, thank you very much.

Regards

maverickwild
11-05-2015, 05:53 PM
Great work Aman kapoor-

I don't know about others,but i felt Voice was yours but i was speaking.
As one of my professors used to say
"Having fire in your belly to drain it down into toilet the next day ,is of no use.
That fire should be visible. "
Great work indeed.

PS : And i dont know about flowers ,Let me know when you have the brick for USCIS campaign . you will find a eager volunteer in myself.

AbhayiSonawane
11-05-2015, 06:03 PM
That was Awesome Aman...God Speed!

Your tone and questions truly summed up our frustration!

BTW, is there a working link of the entire conference; audio or video?

krish2005
11-05-2015, 07:18 PM
Man,

Salutes to you. Thanks for raising your voice for all of us. Our frustrations have been well conveyed.

Love you man.. :D:D:D

Krishna

pd052011
11-05-2015, 08:29 PM
Were any of your questions answered Aman? Atleast offline by any of the panelists? Would love to know what transpired after the Q&A session ended. Aman, if there were any skilled immigrants in that room, they would have stood up and applauded you.

bob4gc
11-05-2015, 09:03 PM
Awesome. Thanks Aman for being everyone's voice.

scrooge2011
11-05-2015, 11:03 PM
Thank you Aman! Loved the energy and passion you demonstrated! You also reflected our frustrations very accurately. Hope the folks have been put on notice that we will not be mute spectators anymore.

2008candid
11-06-2015, 07:58 AM
I just read this from one lawyers site, is that true? Why there is no talk about EB3, if this is true?
November 5, 2015

Earlier today, the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), León Rodríguez, made a presentation during the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Fifth Annual Conference. During his speech, Mr. Rodríguez only spent a few minutes discussing issues related to the agency's visa modernization efforts. And, while few details were provided, there were still some intriguing tidbits of information mentioned, including:

The USCIS is working to clarify the availability of the national interest waiver (NIW) for the employment-based, second preference (EB2) category, including eligibility for inventors, researchers, and entrepreneurs.
The agency is "working quite actively" on regulations to grant certain entrepreneurs the ability to be paroled into the United States.
Proposed regulations for American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21) are in the works and are expected to be unveiled in the coming months.

vasu123
11-06-2015, 10:06 AM
Thank you so much Aman for raising our voice. it's everybody's frustration, hope they should take it serious.

but i did not see any news about I140 EAD rule in any other law groups websites, they only mentioned about AC21, portability of I140 if we change employer.

Oct_31
11-06-2015, 01:37 PM
11/06/2015: Forthcoming USCIS Notice of Policy on Determining Whether a New Job is in "the Same or a Similar Occupational Classification" for Purposes of Section 204(j) Job Portability
•This new policy was submitted to the OMB for clearance on 09/25/2015, which will be approved by the OMB sooner or later this month. This policy will clarify the USCIS reinterpretation of AC 21 portability of the approved I-140 petition, more likely somewhat a liberal way to allow expanded opportunity for change of employment without losing the approved I-140 petitiion. Please stay tuned.

***** From OH Law....

gchungry
11-06-2015, 01:47 PM
Aman Kapoor pressuring DHS today :D

Try to go back to -24 mins towards the end: https://youtu.be/nUh-VO9k15E

Are we still on track for current rule making for I140 EAD submitted by USCIS for public comments on or around 15-Nov-2015? Any action item for this?

john_jony
11-06-2015, 02:13 PM
Is there any action item related to this or are we just focussing on the HR 213 support from local congressman ?
Also any advocacy event in CA or DC or NJ or NY in future ? Where can we find info ? I did not find any any info on CA or NY chapter page so might be there was no events in these places but saw references to DC event which I would have loved to fly from CA to DC and attend those. Where do we find all this info ?

rahdirs
11-06-2015, 02:47 PM
11/06/2015: Forthcoming USCIS Notice of Policy on Determining Whether a New Job is in "the Same or a Similar Occupational Classification" for Purposes of Section 204(j) Job Portability
•This new policy was submitted to the OMB for clearance on 09/25/2015, which will be approved by the OMB sooner or later this month. This policy will clarify the USCIS reinterpretation of AC 21 portability of the approved I-140 petition, more likely somewhat a liberal way to allow expanded opportunity for change of employment without losing the approved I-140 petitiion. Please stay tuned.

***** From OH Law....

Thats Rule 1615-ZB44

hil3182
11-07-2015, 04:52 PM
FYI: Senator Grassley sent a letter to DHS (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/leaked-memos-detail-plan-would-circumvent-injunction-against-administrative) about the I-140 EAD/AC21 regulation and references "The Memo".

He mainly bashes Option 1 in the memo, though other options get a little bit of the "Grassley treatment".

Jambo
11-07-2015, 07:44 PM
FYI: Senator Grassley sent a letter to DHS (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/leaked-memos-detail-plan-would-circumvent-injunction-against-administrative) about the I-140 EAD/AC21 regulation and references "The Memo".

He mainly bashes Option 1 in the memo, though other options get a little bit of the "Grassley treatment".

I'm assuming the leaked memo was the one that IV leaked? What good has come of this now? Grassley and Sessions use legal immigrants as scapegoats while furthering the interests of tech companies that want indentured labor.

hil3182
11-07-2015, 07:51 PM
I'm assuming the leaked memo was the one that IV leaked? What good has come of this now? Grassley and Sessions use legal immigrants as scapegoats while furthering the interests of tech companies that want indentured labor.

Nah. Don't worry about it. Most of the bashing was pro-forma and focused on option 1 which isn't likely to happen anyways.

Hopefully now they will move in bashing other things :D.

garvind59
11-08-2015, 09:21 AM
Obama's DHS Plans Invite New Wave of Foreign Professionals (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/04/obamas-dhs-plans-work-permit-give-away-foreign-professionals/)

Looks like there is no EAD to be from the excerpts below: correct if my interpretation was wrong..

Pressed by Breitbart, Breasseale insisted the pending regulation and the June plan are different.

“They are wholly separate – in substance, in authority, and in applicability. They simply are not the same thing… [and] we do not discuss the substance of pending regulations publicly until they are published,” he said.

When asked for evidence that the June memo has been sidelined, he evaded. “The fact that it was never acted upon is more than sufficient,” he insisted.

hil3182
11-08-2015, 09:34 AM
Obama's DHS Plans Invite New Wave of Foreign Professionals (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/04/obamas-dhs-plans-work-permit-give-away-foreign-professionals/)

Looks like there is no EAD to be from the excerpts below: correct if my interpretation was wrong..

Pressed by Breitbart, Breasseale insisted the pending regulation and the June plan are different.

“They are wholly separate – in substance, in authority, and in applicability. They simply are not the same thing… [and] we do not discuss the substance of pending regulations publicly until they are published,” he said.

When asked for evidence that the June memo has been sidelined, he evaded. “The fact that it was never acted upon is more than sufficient,” he insisted.

That's a terribly written story:

But agency officials are developing a regulation on a similar topic, said Todd Breasseale, the department’s acting Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. “The regulation that we ARE working on involves high-skilled foreign workers who are lawfully present,” he added, without explaining how the developing regulation and the June memo are any different.

Please relax guys :D. November 15th is only a week away.

eastindia
11-08-2015, 05:07 PM
Thank you so much Aman for raising our voice. it's everybody's frustration, hope they should take it serious.

but i did not see any news about I140 EAD rule in any other law groups websites, they only mentioned about AC21, portability of I140 if we change employer.

Actually this question if related to my question at Immigration Voice - View Single Post - Stream of conscience (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/3593355-post28.html)

It has been eating me up. I have lost sleep due to this. Is the truth so harsh or I am just thinking too much?

Jambo
11-08-2015, 09:42 PM
Nah. Don't worry about it. Most of the bashing was pro-forma and focused on option 1 which isn't likely to happen anyways.

Hopefully now they will move in bashing other things :D.

Grassley expressly talks about Option 4 and what would happen if an underlying I-140 was withdrawn. If they block I140EADAP based on this, we are screwed. Not sure why IV leadership decided to leak the document and cause this kind of potential damage.

hil3182
11-08-2015, 09:53 PM
Grassley expressly talks about Option 4 and what would happen if an underlying I-140 was withdrawn. If they block I140EADAP based on this, we are screwed. Not sure why IV leadership decided to leak the document and cause this kind of potential damage.

Don't be a crybaby. We know what we are going. All Grassley is doing is asking questions, which is what is job is as Chairman of Judiciary.

You really think USCIS spent a year writing this without considering the possibility on I-140 withdrawal?

Have you not been following the whole debate over I-140 ownership? Why do you think people were so interested in that arcane question?

hil3182
11-08-2015, 10:07 PM
Jambo,

If you want to understand the drama behind I-140 ownership, read the AILA thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096567-aila-news-and-discussion.html)

In short, withdrawing I-140 has nothing to do with Grassley and has everything to do with who "owns" your I-140.

If you "own" your I-140, the company cannot withdraw it.


AILA and the companies are doing everything in their power to prevent or limit our ownership of our I-140's for obvious reasons.

When I say everything in their power - that's exactly what I mean. I cannot tell you on an open forum what they are doing, but a good analogy would be a psycho ex-girlfriend hiding in your kitchen with a knife.

You might find that AILA thread eye-opening. If anything happens to I-140 EAD, it will be the companies and AILA who screwed us not Grassley.

DMX17
11-08-2015, 11:42 PM
Sunday night thought...inspired from Aman's question "why one year wait for I140 ead?"

I think there is reasonable argument we can make to at the very least reduce the 1 yr to 180 days. 180 days would be consistent with AC21 intent in INA 204(j). I just want to go again on the record before the follower hungry bloggers say anything.:D

I am sure we will try for no wait time, but as a back up would make the case stronger to also ask for 180 days as that has basis in AC21.

hil3182
11-08-2015, 11:58 PM
Sunday night thought...inspired from Aman's question "why one year wait for I140 ead?"

I think there is reasonable argument we can make to at the very least reduce the 1 yr to 180 days. 180 days would be consistent with AC21 intent in INA 204(j). I just want to go again on the record before the follower hungry bloggers say anything.:D

I am sure we will try for no wait time, but as a back up would make the case stronger to also ask for 180 days as that has basis in AC21.

unfortunately that's not how it really works. This isn't an honest negotiation.

This is brass-knuckled lobbying. If they have decided to give the companies 365 days delay, the companies will get 365 days delay - EVEN if we proposed 180 days delay.

So if we are going to throw our weight behind a proposal, might as well throw it behind something we actually want instead of some watered down proposal we can live with.

If DHS wants to play meaningful arbitrator, they have enough lawyers and can do it on their own.

Added later: on re-reading your comment, it seems you are suggesting we add both proposals. If they do come out with one year, we will need to talk about it - but my current view is that too is a non-starter. If DHS were going to take the approach of splitting the difference, they will split the difference between 180 days and 365 days when we could have had them split the difference between 0 and 365 days. By let us see. A lot will depend on what we hear from "friends" both friendly and unfriendly :D

DMX17
11-09-2015, 12:21 AM
unfortunately that's not how it really works. This isn't an honest negotiation.

This is brass-knuckled lobbying. If they have decided to give the companies 365 days delay, the companies will get 365 days delay - EVEN if we proposed 180 days delay.

So if we are going to throw our weight behind a proposal, might as well throw it behind something we actually want instead of some watered down proposal we can live with.

If DHS wants to play meaningful arbitrator, they have enough lawyers and can do it on their own.

Added later: on re-reading your comment, it seems you are suggesting we add both proposals. If they do come out with one year, we will need to talk about it - but my current view is that too is a non-starter. If DHS were going to take the approach of splitting the difference, they will split the difference between 180 days and 365 days when we could have had them split the difference between 0 and 365 days. By let us see. A lot will depend on what we hear from "friends" both friendly and unfriendly :D

I meant ask both options. Like Kevin Cummings told Aman "submit comments when rule is piblished" , I took that to mean if backlogged community provides consistent comments on wait times, there is a chance to either get 0 or 180 days after 140 approval. Maybe I am thinking too much but can't help it.

All this assumes rule does get published.

I also read somewhere someone said they asked for some change in H4 ead in comments and got them to change the original proposal. I could be wrong here.

shv
11-09-2015, 12:38 AM
One person on forum is confidently claiming since Jul29th that i140ead is dead and only I140portability is in the works, and he claims that the source is horses deputy's deputy. Though I don't believe in rumours, but after Aman's speech and his views and all the talk here of anti-immigrant lobbying against I140ead, I'm little leaning towards this rumour. If the upcoming proposed rule doesnt mention ead/ap and just job portability then I would be very very very disappointed and heart broken. Hoping for the best for ALL!

Jambo
11-09-2015, 02:08 AM
I meant ask both options. Like Kevin Cummings told Aman "submit comments when rule is piblished" , I took that to mean if backlogged community provides consistent comments on wait times, there is a chance to either get 0 or 180 days after 140 approval. Maybe I am thinking too much but can't help it.

All this assumes rule does get published.

I also read somewhere someone said they asked for some change in H4 ead in comments and got them to change the original proposal. I could be wrong here.

our comments must be geared towards helping the American people. if the eye-140 becomes hours to keep and we get EAD as well as AP along with it, it means that we can easily jump ship from company to company and that means wages will rise, thereby benefiting Americans. It will also disincentize these body shopping Indian consulting firms as well as bloodsucking system integrators such as Deloitte from importing cheap H1B labor.

kishorda
11-09-2015, 01:47 PM
Report: DHS spends $1B to digitize, only 1 immigration form available online | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/09/report-dhs-spends-1b-to-digitize-only-1-immigration-form-available-online/?intcmp=hpbt3)

Report: DHS drafts work-around in case court keeps freeze on immigration actions | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/03/report-dhs-drafts-work-around-in-case-court-keeps-freeze-on-immigration-actions/?intcmp=hpbt3)

check this out.

Tpathrose
11-09-2015, 02:27 PM
Visa bulletin out
no difference for EB2 india

garvind59
11-09-2015, 02:27 PM
Visa Bulletin For December 2015 (http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bulletin/2016/visa-bulletin-for-december-2015.html)

vikastaneja
11-09-2015, 03:13 PM
Visa Bulletin For December 2015 (http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bulletin/2016/visa-bulletin-for-december-2015.html)

Pathetic....no movement in either tables for EB2I :(
Wondering if DHS/USCIS is serious in making any fixes...????

Flyingcrow
11-09-2015, 03:29 PM
Going by the last inventory data, and with an year over year drop of 1500 applications between Oct 2014 and 15, it would take 6 years to burn up that inventory if the consumption would stay at the same rate.

DMX17
11-09-2015, 03:38 PM
Going by the last inventory data, and with an year over year drop of 1500 applications between Oct 2014 and 15, it would take 6 years to burn up that inventory if the consumption would stay at the same rate.

The visa bulletin prediction says they expect the EB2I date will likely move "up to 8 months" per month until March (that would be 24 months?). That would bring the date to July 2009. Should also make the case for moving the acceptance date, but no one knows what really moves the dates. I am personally no longer excited or disheartened by VBs!

krish2005
11-09-2015, 03:59 PM
:rolleyes: Lost all the hope in these crap bulletins!!:rolleyes:

IV is the only hope I see for any resistance.

EB3: Come'on 3 weeks each month until march :confused:? I think those 3 weeks prediction was just to add some playtime for themselves to kill their own boredom of putting same VB each month..

EB2: At least our friends out there in EB2 should see some good progress.

Already in holidays mood.. Happy holidays all. Happy Diwali..

Flyingcrow
11-09-2015, 04:11 PM
The visa bulletin prediction says they expect the EB2I date will likely move "up to 8 months" per month until March (that would be 24 months?). That would bring the date to July 2009. Should also make the case for moving the acceptance date, but no one knows what really moves the dates. I am personally no longer excited or disheartened by VBs!

Its not per month, it is movement upto 8 months in the coming months, which would mean, it would mean 8 months for say two bulletins and reach 2009 and stop there.

Flyingcrow
11-09-2015, 04:17 PM
Excuse me, DMX17 you are right and me too! 8 months per VB movement will land us in Aug 2009 in March VB.

Dec VB - Jun 2007
Jan VB - Feb 2008
Feb VB - Dec 2008
Mar VB - Aug 2009

vasu123
11-09-2015, 04:17 PM
There is no hope on I-140 EAD, they did not even revert or move EB2 dates back to 2011, already Dec bulletin is out and lot of people expected about EB2 dates move to 2011 july for applying EAD. nothing happened so they are ignoring our concerns.

Flyingcrow
11-09-2015, 04:23 PM
Excuse me, DMX17 you are right and me too! 8 months per VB movement will land us in Aug 2009 in March VB.

Dec VB - Jun 2007
Jan VB - Feb 2008
Feb VB - Dec 2008
Mar VB - Aug 2009

Damn, it should be Oct 2008 and June 2009. What am i smoking!!
Anyway no hope in the VB for people beyond 30 April 2010 who did not get to apply in 2012.
It is going to be painfully slow for dates to move from Jun 2009 to even 2010, and anything beyond holds no hope.

vikastaneja
11-09-2015, 06:15 PM
There is no hope on I-140 EAD, they did not even revert or move EB2 dates back to 2011, already Dec bulletin is out and lot of people expected about EB2 dates move to 2011 july for applying EAD. nothing happened so they are ignoring our concerns.

Yeah, it is true that DHS/USCIS don't care about us. They only want to legalize illegal ones and they only want us to pay taxes. :mad:

rajesh06
11-09-2015, 08:54 PM
Three ways to improve employment-based green cards | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/259507-three-ways-to-improve-employment-based-green-cards)

whiteStallion
11-09-2015, 09:03 PM
In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a Texas-based judge's injunction blocking the Obama administration's immigration initiative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-on-immigration/2015/05/26/7546832a-03d9-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html

anshu
11-09-2015, 11:21 PM
There is no hope on I-140 EAD, they did not even revert or move EB2 dates back to 2011, already Dec bulletin is out and lot of people expected about EB2 dates move to 2011 july for applying EAD. nothing happened so they are ignoring our concerns.

Chuck is back again, we have some hope for good news but chuck always kill those hope now he send to latter toUSCIS with 9 republican senators about against EAD 140. Sucks :confused:

eadeadead
11-10-2015, 07:34 AM
Hi Friends

First of all I want to thank Aman for giving a great speech at the meeting. I have watched the video more than ten times to see the courage and daring of this guy.

I was trying to analyze what was said and body language of the panelists. In my view Aman did not present the frustration, instead he presented the upcoming possible kill of this executive action. If I may remember in all the previous times, IV has always been appreciative of admin until after VB fiasco. This seems to be serious issue now as I would say that this was the attempt to rescue dead from alive.

Now lets look at panelists, most of them were trying to avoid confrontation and were taking notes and were hoping that this guy stops talking and let us go home. But also implies that we have done damage now nothing can be changed.

Overall it was a great try to do CPR but constant ventilator and Epinephrine is required to rescue i140 ead unless the prognosis seems to be grave.

Bigapple11
11-10-2015, 08:28 AM
Chuck is back again, we have some hope for good news but chuck always kill those hope now he send to latter toUSCIS with 9 republican senators about against EAD 140. Sucks :confused:

Is there something we can do about this? Write letters and contact these 9 GOP senators through local immigrants in their area and pressurize them and ask for an explanation. Aren't they answerable to tax paying residence?

Aemon.Targ
11-10-2015, 11:01 AM
Admin, any comment on this?

Leaked Memos detail plan that would Circumvent Injunction against Administrative Amnesty | Chuck Grassley (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/leaked-memos-detail-plan-would-circumvent-injunction-against-administrative)

Looks like we will be in trouble bcos of illegals.

hil3182
11-10-2015, 11:52 AM
:rolleyes: Lost all the hope in these crap bulletins!!:rolleyes:

IV is the only hope I see for any resistance.

EB3: Come'on 3 weeks each month until march :confused:? I think those 3 weeks prediction was just to add some playtime for themselves to kill their own boredom of putting same VB each month..

EB2: At least our friends out there in EB2 should see some good progress.

Already in holidays mood.. Happy holidays all. Happy Diwali..

There is no hope on I-140 EAD, they did not even revert or move EB2 dates back to 2011, already Dec bulletin is out and lot of people expected about EB2 dates move to 2011 july for applying EAD. nothing happened so they are ignoring our concerns.

Yeah, it is true that DHS/USCIS don't care about us. They only want to legalize illegal ones and they only want us to pay taxes. :mad:

Hi Friends

First of all I want to thank Aman for giving a great speech at the meeting. I have watched the video more than ten times to see the courage and daring of this guy.

I was trying to analyze what was said and body language of the panelists. In my view Aman did not present the frustration, instead he presented the upcoming possible kill of this executive action. If I may remember in all the previous times, IV has always been appreciative of admin until after VB fiasco. This seems to be serious issue now as I would say that this was the attempt to rescue dead from alive.

Now lets look at panelists, most of them were trying to avoid confrontation and were taking notes and were hoping that this guy stops talking and let us go home. But also implies that we have done damage now nothing can be changed.

Overall it was a great try to do CPR but constant ventilator and Epinephrine is required to rescue i140 ead unless the prognosis seems to be grave.

Admin, any comment on this?

Leaked Memos detail plan that would Circumvent Injunction against Administrative Amnesty | Chuck Grassley (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/leaked-memos-detail-plan-would-circumvent-injunction-against-administrative)

Looks like we will be in trouble bcos of illegals.



This is just a small sampling of what I call whine posts. How do you expect Congress, Administration or anyone else to know about your concerns if you won't speak up and let them know your problems?

Instead you come here and whine whine whine whine.

Instead of whining why don't you go ask for HR.213 sponsorship. Tell them about our living conditions. Tell them about the VB fiasco. Don't just come here and whine.

We are here to fight for you - to be your advocate and doing this for free on our own time. We are not your f***ing therapist.

hil3182
11-10-2015, 12:14 PM
Let me add some context to the above post.

I met a local Congressman this morning. During the event the first three people that spoke to him were undocumented advocates who really had nothing immediately actionable to talk about - they talked to him about their families walking around in ankle bracelets while while waiting for their hearing date (I am not familiar with this and it was shocking to hear). They had no bill to push, they were just there to educate him about their problems.

I got to know about the opportunity to meet the Congressman last night while dicking around on my phone on twitter. I put the event up in my state chapter - and only one guy showed up. I ironed my shirt, ironed my pants, polished my shoes, dusted off my suit, woke up at 6:00AM to get on a train so I could go meet him on time. It takes a significant effort to do these kinds of things.

If people don't step up and let lawmakers know of our problems, nothing will happen. Whining on forums does nothing for anybody. Not only that - we have an actual bill to push - a bill that can pass, yet people are not stepping up. The undocumented community don't even have that - their parents are walking around in f***ing ankle bracelets - they have ZERO chance of any relief with this congress, and they still show up to fight. We have a bill that can move, and there is no sense of urgency in pushing for it. It is very sad. Everybody just wants information.

Everybody is saying that the undocumented are getting everything blah blah blah, well my view is they have earned it. Have you done your part for HR.213? Have you done your part to educate people about our issues?




Regarding I-140 EAD, you will know it's fate shorty. Please stop whining and speculating about it and use your time constructively.

Flyingcrow
11-10-2015, 12:35 PM
Going by the last inventory data, and with an year over year drop of 1500 applications between Oct 2014 and 15, it would take 6 years to burn up that inventory if the consumption would stay at the same rate.

There was something in the air at my workplace, seriously!

18000/1500 = 12, not 6.

This number should be enough to wake up people of their dope called hope, that if they patiently wait doing their stuff, they would get to their card may be in couple of years. .

12 damn years to drain the current 18k eb2I inventory, with the current consumption rate of other categories and 3-2 porting per year, and that will only get us to 1st May 2010.

garvind59
11-10-2015, 01:52 PM
Lets talk hope..

Since the EO for DAPA/CA are blocked, USCIS may now focus on Legals. All they got is to clear the backlogs by applying spillovers. As per CO statement in Oct, the dates will move to mid 2009 by end of Sep'16. So the filing dates has to go up by an year or 2 to '11. This way, some legacy can be left vs nothing by doing this.

Can someone share the inventory vs avail spillover numbers?

Appreciate.

Jambo
11-10-2015, 02:30 PM
Let me add some context to the above post.

I met a local Congressman this morning. During the event the first three people that spoke to him were undocumented advocates who really had nothing immediately actionable to talk about - they talked to him about their families walking around in ankle bracelets while while waiting for their hearing date (I am not familiar with this and it was shocking to hear). They had no bill to push, they were just there to educate him about their problems.

I got to know about the opportunity to meet the Congressman last night while dicking around on my phone on twitter. I put the event up in my state chapter - and only one guy showed up. I ironed my shirt, ironed my pants, polished my shoes, dusted off my suit, woke up at 6:00AM to get on a train so I could go meet him on time. It takes a significant effort to do these kinds of things.

If people don't step up and let lawmakers know of our problems, nothing will happen. Whining on forums does nothing for anybody. Not only that - we have an actual bill to push - a bill that can pass, yet people are not stepping up. The undocumented community don't even have that - their parents are walking around in f***ing ankle bracelets - they have ZERO chance of any relief with this congress, and they still show up to fight. We have a bill that can move, and there is no sense of urgency in pushing for it. It is very sad. Everybody just wants information.

Everybody is saying that the undocumented are getting everything blah blah blah, well my view is they have earned it. Have you done your part for HR.213? Have you done your part to educate people about our issues?




Regarding I-140 EAD, you will know it's fate shorty. Please stop whining and speculating about it and use your time constructively.

Myself, and some other IV folks met with the legislative assistant for immigration in our local district here in the Bay Area. I provided her with the handouts that the local IV chapter lead gave to me. I then posted in the Facebook Group asking for help in editing my thank you note to make sure that I'm speaking the same voice as IV, and no one responded to me. Should I just go ahead and send one without IV leadership looking at it?

hil3182
11-10-2015, 02:35 PM
Myself, and some other IV folks met with the legislative assistant for immigration in our local district here in the Bay Area. I provided her with the handouts that the local IV chapter lead gave to me. I then posted in the Facebook Group asking for help in editing my thank you note to make sure that I'm speaking the same voice as IV, and no one responded to me. Should I just go ahead and send one without IV leadership looking at it?

Please PM what you have to me. Thank you very much for doing the meeting and more importantly - following up.

DMX17
11-10-2015, 02:45 PM
Lets talk hope..

Since the EO for DAPA/CA are blocked, USCIS may now focus on Legals. All they got is to clear the backlogs by applying spillovers. As per CO statement in Oct, the dates will move to mid 2009 by end of Sep'16. So the filing dates has to go up by an year or 2 to '11. This way, some legacy can be left vs nothing by doing this.

Can someone share the inventory vs avail spillover numbers?

Appreciate.

Check out other forums. There are experts on these things out there. :D

Let me just say this, inspired from an older IV member, you will be wasting time in analyzing these inventory data and spillover spreadsheets just for the remote possibility of achieving the satisfaction that your predictions were correct. As such, please do not spend time on these activities and focus on HR213 (not much on I-140EAD either on what it might contain until it is out).

eastindia
11-10-2015, 04:17 PM
anyone saw this

Immigrant Confronts DHS On Disregard For American Workers | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/09/dhs-panel-confronted-anybody-here-who-represents-american-workers/)

namitxyz
11-10-2015, 04:29 PM
anyone saw this

Immigrant Confronts DHS On Disregard For American Workers | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/09/dhs-panel-confronted-anybody-here-who-represents-american-workers/)

I suggest that you retweet this :)

https://twitter.com/immivoice/status/664188597575266312

Jambo
11-11-2015, 02:11 PM
Please PM what you have to me. Thank you very much for doing the meeting and more importantly - following up.

Cool. Just sent you a draft of my follow-up email to the legislative aide.

king_2003
11-12-2015, 03:55 PM
Greg Siskind posted this on Twitter. I hope it is not true -

‏@gsiskind
Don't be surprised if I-140 reforms R split into more than 1 reg.AC21 rule coming soon could have I-140 revocation part & EAD will be after - Link (https://twitter.com/gsiskind/status/664898096464322560)

abcdgc
11-12-2015, 04:08 PM
Greg Siskind posted this on Twitter. I hope it is not true -

‏@gsiskind
Don't be surprised if I-140 reforms R split into more than 1 reg.AC21 rule coming soon could have I-140 revocation part & EAD will be after - Link ("")



Admin2 said that Greg has not value when it comes to policy. Forget about what has says. Whatever he says, it has no meaning. Ignore him. Let him defend his buddy immigration lawyers who exploit our brethren. If he refuse to accept that immigration lawyers are exploiting skilled immigrants like us then that is his problem.

essell
11-12-2015, 04:39 PM
Admin2 said that Greg has not value when it comes to policy. Forget about what has says. Whatever he says, it has no meaning. Ignore him. Let him defend his buddy immigration lawyers who exploit our brethren. If he refuse to accept that immigration lawyers are exploiting skilled immigrants like us then that is his problem.

Try asking Greg a difficult question and you will see deflects (my experience in recent times) ....he is completely waste of time & energy. His USP is not his knowledge of immigration law but its his so called publicity over social media. Instead of writing good books on how to improve the immigration law practices he wrote a book on how to use social media for publicity of lawyers.

If he had good subject matter expertise, we should not seen a failure in the Lawsuit.

I think he doesn't know some things that a very less experienced lawyer is aware (he may blame being always on twitter as an excuse to know the law better).

Many people have good knowledge on how the regulations may be derived or split into ...but those who are genuine and want these things to happen will not put things on twitter and try to create a sensation.

His access to some low ranked DHS staff & his access to Twitter on his phone should not be taken as his competence ...he should be judged by the law suit that many people have made contribution. For not delivering the AILA letter on 140EAD I feel he is not even respected within AILA. He has nothing to do so he tweets and wastes our time.

greyhair
11-12-2015, 04:51 PM
Try asking Greg a difficult question and you will see deflects (my experience in recent times) ....he is completely waste of time & energy. His USP is not his knowledge of immigration law but its his so called publicity over social media. Instead of writing good books on how to improve the immigration law practices he wrote a book on how to use social media for publicity of lawyers.

If he had good subject matter expertise, we should not seen a failure in the Lawsuit.

I think he doesn't know some things that a very less experienced lawyer is aware (he may blame being always on twitter as an excuse to know the law better).

Many people have good knowledge on how the regulations may be derived or split into ...but those who are genuine and want these things to happen will not put things on twitter and try to create a sensation.

His access to some low ranked DHS staff & his access to Twitter on his phone should not be taken as his competence ...he should be judged by the law suit that many people have made contribution. For not delivering the AILA letter on 140EAD I feel he is not even respected within AILA. He has nothing to do so he tweets and wastes our time.

I agree 100%. I think immigration lawyers and AILA is trying to water down EAD for I140 fix. Greg is trying to prepare us about that as that is what they are trying to do. That is what I saw in Aman's video a few days back when he took DHS to task.

Lawyers are trying to restrict the number of people to whom EAD for I140 fix will apply. And they are lobbying so people like us will not have the freedom from our employers. This is a corrupt system with corrupt immigration lawyers

vikastaneja
11-12-2015, 04:57 PM
I agree 100%. I think immigration lawyers and AILA is trying to water down EAD for I140 fix. Greg is trying to prepare us about that as that is what they are trying to do. That is what I saw in Aman's video a few days back when he took DHS to task.

Lawyers are trying to restrict the number of people to whom EAD for I140 fix will apply. And they are lobbying so people like us will not have the freedom from our employers. This is a corrupt system with corrupt immigration lawyers

I fully agree that this is a corrupt nexus.
When DHS published new list for filing EAD for I140, it was Greg who had this info days before. It seems the his roots are pretty deep. What is the way of fighting it out? What if this time, he is correct too?
One can fully say to ignore his comments, but what if they turned out to be true?
We sent flowers after the EAD filing dates reversed...but nothing happened afterwards...DHS didn't care and they don't care... :confused:

essell
11-12-2015, 05:07 PM
I agree 100%. I think immigration lawyers and AILA is trying to water down EAD for I140 fix. Greg is trying to prepare us about that as that is what they are trying to do. That is what I saw in Aman's video a few days back when he took DHS to task.
Lawyers are trying to restrict the number of people to whom EAD for I140 fix will apply. And they are lobbying so people like us will not have the freedom from our employers. This is a corrupt system with corrupt immigration lawyers

Greag can be called as a Smart Idiot ....Smart in Technologies and Idiot in the subject matter. Our folks are mistaking him to be a Immigration CNN sort of channel.
So let us all ask him the difficult questions on
1. why is AILA not giving unconditional support letter for the 140 EAD?
2. Why is AILA complicating the 140 handover to the immigrants?
3. Why is AILA not forcing their members to return the lawyer fees for UN-submitted applications?
4. How can we not suspect he is not leaking the lawsuit info to the DHS source who provides him the Regs information ?

vasu123
11-13-2015, 09:53 AM
is i140 portability bill draft coming out soon for comments? i heard from friends about it.

what about if current employer fires and revoke H1, i think we don't have grace period to transfer our H1 to new employer, i heard we will be out of status immediately after our h1 got revoked. i think it's better to give the grace period for this and give i140 portability.

DMX17
11-13-2015, 10:55 AM
is i140 portability bill draft coming out soon for comments? i heard from friends about it.

what about if current employer fires and revoke H1, i think we don't have grace period to transfer our H1 to new employer, i heard we will be out of status immediately after our h1 got revoked. i think it's better to give the grace period for this and give i140 portability.

We are all waiting for i140 rule. Coming soon is what I read on this forum. Don't know what's in it until it comes out. There is no grace period for h1b on job loss currently. Don't know whether this will be addressed with i140 rule.

whiteStallion
11-13-2015, 11:26 AM
According to IV the 140 Regulation should come out by 15th Nov. Today is the last business day before 15th. Are we still expecting it to be released today ?

hil3182
11-13-2015, 12:00 PM
FYI: We are doing a public call (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096585-a-call-with-immigration-voice.html#post3593533) this Sunday and it might interest some.

gccommando
11-13-2015, 02:28 PM
according to my credible sources, the regulation will be out next week...you can count on it..

DMX17
11-13-2015, 04:15 PM
according to my credible sources, the regulation will be out next week...you can count on it..

Who are your credible sources?

sourab
11-13-2015, 04:17 PM
Check this out, they moved the dates back again.

When to File Your Adjustment of Status Application for Family-Sponsored or Employment-Based Preference Visas: December 2015 | USCIS (http://www.uscis.gov/visabulletin-dec-15)

vicky23
11-13-2015, 04:19 PM
These guys are crazy, only hope is HR 213 or EAD 140 rule.

phoenixwings
11-13-2015, 04:23 PM
according to my credible sources, the regulation will be out next week...you can count on it..

Which regulation, there are 3 of them in the agenda!

phota
11-13-2015, 04:33 PM
can someone explain me what is the difference between the DOS visa bulletin and USCIS visa bulletin?

garvind59
11-13-2015, 05:10 PM
according to my credible sources, the regulation will be out next week...you can count on it..
what regulation?

Toadie
11-13-2015, 05:48 PM
Check this out, they moved the dates back again.

When to File Your Adjustment of Status Application for Family-Sponsored or Employment-Based Preference Visas: December 2015 | USCIS (http://www.uscis.gov/visabulletin-dec-15)

The title of the table still shows FINAL ACTION DATE. They might not have prepared APP DATE yet for EB categories. But who really believes these numb nuts.

pappu
11-13-2015, 07:00 PM
The title of the table still shows FINAL ACTION DATE. They might not have prepared APP DATE yet for EB categories. But who really believes these numb nuts.

Final action date is actually a typo

It was supposed to be finally action taken after a long time date.

Toadie
11-13-2015, 09:48 PM
Final action date is actually a typo

It was supposed to be finally action taken after a long time date.

Scroll down on the page. you'd see the App Date of July 2009. Final Action date is not a typo. It is regular old VB date.

Bhishma
11-14-2015, 12:59 AM
scroll down on the page. You'd see the app date of july 2009. Final action date is not a typo. It is regular old vb date.

lmao

Bhishma
11-14-2015, 02:15 AM
according to my credible sources, the regulation will be out next week...you can count on it..

I think it is high time we recognize your credible sources. Their services are commendable and thank you for connecting us desperate and needy folks to your esteemed sources.

jugalkapadia2
11-16-2015, 06:27 PM
according to my credible sources, the regulation will be out next week...you can count on it..

Any updates on the announcement???

max4438
11-16-2015, 06:58 PM
Any updates on the announcement???

Hi, no new updates. I think we should all start wearing slavery chains and ankle bracelets and give our passports to our employers. They have the I-140 anyway and know that we are not going anywhere and cannot ask for promotion/salary increase.

Might as well start dressing up as daily laborers/slaves as well. You may laugh at my comment but look in the mirror, isn't this the reality?

Himesh_Reshammiya
11-16-2015, 08:39 PM
so we just keep waiting without any news from uscis?

Himesh_Reshammiya
11-16-2015, 08:44 PM
any idea what this is? Visa Availability and Priority Dates | USCIS (http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/visa-availability-and-priority-dates)

max4438
11-16-2015, 08:53 PM
It means "F*** You, bonded laborers from India and China. You are our bitch for 15 to 20years."

Himesh_Reshammiya
11-16-2015, 09:00 PM
It means "F*** You, bonded laborers from India and China. You are our bitch for 15 to 20years."

lols being their b**** would hv been less painful that getting exploited like this..

hil3182
11-16-2015, 09:43 PM
Some one has had a little too much to drink :D

Maybe you should go talk to your congressman about HR.213.

We have a bill that can pass. The undocumented community don't even have that. Their parents are walking around in ankle bracelets.

Himesh_Reshammiya
11-16-2015, 09:56 PM
Some one has had a little too much to drink :D

Maybe you should go talk to your congressman about HR.213.

We have a bill that can pass. The undocumented community don't even have that. Their parents are walking around in ankle bracelets.

today might not be the right day, i am only singing "tera tera suroor" today..

hil3182
11-16-2015, 10:13 PM
today might not be the right day, i am only singing "tera tera suroor" today..

This is what I listen to on days like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMr3KtYUCcI&sns=em

greenappletx
11-16-2015, 10:30 PM
But any chances of submitting I140 EADAP rule to OMB this week?

namitxyz
11-16-2015, 10:44 PM
But any chances of submitting I140 EADAP rule to OMB this week?

no if, no but - only jatttt :D